♪♪ welcome to a very full schedule agenda indeed. uh, good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission hearing for wednesday, february 21st, 2024. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. 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 your next person queued to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. and finally, i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or

outbursts of any kind at this time. i'd like to take roll commission. president matsuda here. commission vice president warren here. commissioner foley, i, commissioner vergara here. and commissioner right here. we expect commissioners baldauf and campbell to be absent today for first on your agenda 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. good afternoon commissioners. my name is woody labounty. i am from san francisco heritage. i just want to ■point out that histori preservation is increasingly being framed and publicized as a significant impediment to housing production. indeed, there are more and more articles claims, and i would say gross misinformation on preservation

and indeed even more open disdain for the idea that any part of our city's history is worth protecting in any way. sometimes it's a direct attack. cherry picking examples of wealthy communities seeking recognition of historic landmarks, tapes, stories which can easily tie into our society's most stark inequities and history of racism, and sometimes it's just lazy references conflating preservation with stereotypes of obstructive nimbys. today's agenda, which i won't address directly, provides a direct, a richer and more accurate version of what preservation is. it's not always saying no, but saying yes to cultural districts legacy businesses celebrating the architecture, landscapes and the diverse communities that make up this amazing city. the traits that draw people and praise from around the world. um, now the push to add housing to the city of san francisco is not lacking. champions everyone is ready to add housing to the city,

including san francisco heritage. there are so, so many places we can do so and also keep what makes this city special. this commission is one of the few places where the benefits and the importance of preservation is even talked about, and i'd like to encourage this commission to consider sharing that more broadly. if you can't as a commission, then please do so as individuals with your peers, in your circles, in your discussions with other elected officials, with friends, with family. we need to make our positive voices heard. thank you very much. thank you. okay last call for general public comment. seeing none. general public comment is closed. department matters. item one. department announcements. good afternoon. commissioners. rich chucri, department staff, i just want to provide you an update on some recent happenings at the board of supervisors at the land use committee on on last week, the board of supervisors heard the landmark designation for the grand theater. so that is moving forward towards becoming our

next city landmark. as you know, the commission recommended approval for this land marking in addition, the land use committee was supposed to hear the landmark designation for sacred heart. however the land use committee decided to continue that item for one week. um, other than that, i have no other items for um for your update. thank you. if there are no questions, commission matters . item two consideration of adoption draft minutes for february seventh, 2020 for members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. again, you need to come forward seeing none public comment on the minutes is closed and they are now before you. commissioners motion to approve. is there a second? second? thank you commissioners, on that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner vergara? yes, commissioner. right. yes commissioner. foley, i commissioner warren. yes. and commissioner. president matsuda. yes. so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0, placing us on item three.

commission comments and questions. are there any, uh, commission comments or questions ? disclosures, announcements. commissioner warren, um, i will be recused on items nine a and nine b, um, due to the fact that my employer, fort mason center, has, um, uh, uh, supported and paid for the application for the legacy business. uh registry. thank you. thank you, commissioner vergara. uh i think i need to disclose that i took a tour of the chinatown branch of the library last friday. i think we all should disclose that. okay, i don't know if all of us made that tour i did. i know commissioner warren did, and i did as well. and i also spoke with miss mcmillan yesterday about the african american citywide context statement. thank you. thanks. okay any other disclosures? others. i have a disclosure that i will be recusing myself on agenda item

uh, nine f because of its proximity to my residence and i also will. i'm sorry, did i cut you off? no. i'll be recusing myself from items five and seven. any other comments or questions regarding today's agenda? it's a very full agenda. and i think we will be here till we, uh, will have to leave at 430. so we might take a break. so please, commissioners, let me know when you need that. i think we're good with agenda item number three. jonas. very good. with that. we should move on to consideration of items proposed for continuance item for case number 2019. hyphen 017325. code eight 109 liberty street. for a certificate of appropriateness. it is being proposed for an indefinite continuance. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continued use. again, you need

to come forward ed seeing none. public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you. commissioners motion to approve. i'll second that. thank you. commissioners on that motion to continue item for as proposed indefinitely. commissioner vergara. yes, commissioner. wright. yes. commissioner. foley i commissioner warren. and commissioner. president matsuda. yes. so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0. placing us under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call. vote there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff, so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing item five case number 2023. hyphen 00398 mls at 988 market street. this is a

request to adopt a resolution recommending to the board of supervisors. non-renewal item six case number 2023. hyphen 003779 mls for the property at 2209 webster street. also, a request to adopt a resolution to non-renew a mills act, item seven, case number 2023. hyphen 010621 coa at 20 franklin street a certificate of appropriate appropriateness and item eight, case number 2022 hyphen 013043coa at 1135 powell street a certificate of appropriateness . um members of the public. this is your opportunity to request that any of these items be removed from the consent calendar and heard later today, or at a future hearing. please come forward seeing none. public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. commissioners um, commissioner wright has requested a recusal from items

five and seven. so so we should take up those matters first, and then six and eight separately. i think we also, commissioner nageswaran would like to have several agenda items removed from consent. oh, there you go. i would like 20 franklin street and 1135 powell street taken off consent. okay. very good. um, shall we hear those at the beginning of the regular calendar or at the end? we could hear them at the beginning. very good. so item seven and eight will be heard at the beginning of the regular calendar, leaving items five and six. so, commissioner wright is requesting that item five, that he be recused from item five. so we should take up that matter. first motion to recuse. uh, commissioner wright on item five. second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to recuse commissioner wright, commissioner vergara. yes. commissioner. wright. yes commissioner. foley i commissioner warren. yes. and commission president. matsuda yes. so moved. commissioners. commissioner wright, you're hereby recused. i would just

stay there. motion to approve 998 market on consent. very good commissioners on that motion. oh wait a minute. i did not hear a second. i'll second that. thank you, commissioner vergara. on that motion, then to approve commission item. agenda item five. agenda item five on consent. commissioner vergara. yes. commissioner wright. uh. excuse me. commissioner. foley. hi. commissioner warren. yes. and commissioner. president matsuda. yes. so move. commissioners that motion passes. you 4 to 0, leaving us on item six, motion to approve. item six on consent. thank you, commissioner foley. on that. is there a second? i'll second that. thank you. on that motion to approve item six on consent. commissioner vergara. yes. commissioner. wright. yes commissioner. foley i. commissioner warren. yes. and commissioner. president. matsuda yes. so move. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. so placing us, uh, on your

regular calendar on item seven that's been pulled off of consent for case number 2023. hyphen 010621 coa at 20 franklin street. a certificate of appropriateness. good afternoon, commissioners rebecca salgado, planning staff, before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to 20 franklin street, located at the northeast corner of franklin street, page street and market street, the property is a contributor to the article ten market street masonry landmark district, and was constructed in 1917. the project involves a voluntary seismic upgrade consisting primarily of exterior steel moment frames, to be installed at the two light wells at the page street and market street facades, and exterior steel brace frames to be installed at the minimally visible secondary north and east elevations. the project also includes mechanical, electrical and plumbing upgrades to the existing housing units that will result in the installation of four inch diameter through wall

vents with painted metal caps at select locations of the franklin street facade and the minimally visible secondary north and east elevations. mechanical upgrades will also require louvers to be inserted in the openings of two existing non-historic transom lights at the market street facade, the project includes the replacement of an existing non-historic security gate at the north light court at the franklin street frontage, with a new metal security gate. lastly, the project includes exterior facade repairs and interior alterations at all levels as staff finds that the proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements of article ten and the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. the proposed work will not modify the existing retail and residential uses of the building, and the seismic bracing has been designed to retain the existing interior. residential unit layouts and protect the historic property in the event of an earthquake. while the new seismic bracing will be visible from multiple public rights of way, it has been designed to be as minimal and unobtrusive as possible and will be set back

from the street behind the decorative light court pediments , and will be painted to match the surrounding brick cladding. while select areas of brick cladding will be removed and altered for the installation of the seismic bracing and the new four inch diameter vents at the franklin street facade, only a small percentage of the total brick cladding will be affected by this work. the new security gate at the franklin street frontage will have a simple contemporary design that is compatible with the existing building, but also does not create a false sense of history. the restoration work at the exterior elevations proposes repairs rather than replacement of historic facade elements, including repointing, brick repair, wood window trim repair, and terracotta repair. staff's preliminary recommendation for this project is for approval with conditions, as staff has not received any public comment on the project. this concludes my presentation unless there are any questions and the project sponsor also has a brief presentation of the project. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes if you need it

. okay and how do i do full screen ? thank you. so thank you. jonah. how do i. nsf.gov. can we go to the computer, please? okay go ahead. hello um, thank you, commissioners, for hearing us today. my name is lilia roman.

i'm an assistant project manager at mercy housing. um, and i'm supporting the 20 franklin street developer, uh, project. it's an existing building of 70 units at franklin market and page streets, and it's 100% affordable housing for um, adults with hiv aids. good afternoon. commissioners my name is elisa skaggs, and i'm with page and turnbull. we're the preservation architect for this project. uh, the project is low, located at the intersections of market street, franklin and page street. uh, we're very excited to get this project going and have even gone to the office of historic preservation and had a preliminary discussion, and it looks like it's going to be eligible for tax credits. um, the building was constructed in in 1917, designed by albert landsberg, and is a contributor

to the market street masonry historic district, which consists of eight buildings that are notable for their exceptional architectural character. the building was part of the reconstruction that happened after the earthquake and fire in 1906, and it has several character defining features, including the red brick cladding, the terra cotta detailing, the irregular massing, tripartite composition, decorative cornice and transom windows above the storefronts, among among others um. the project consists of minimizing of demolition to the historic building both inside and outside . um, you know, goals include, um, minimizing the impact to the special needs tenants of the building, including their quality of life, maximizing the cost effectiveness of the project to allow for other improvements and we also have preservation goals, standard one maintaining the existing use of

the building, retaining the historic integrity of the building while making the building safer for the tenants. compliance with the secretary of the interior standards. while considering both economic and technical feasibility and also consideration of the tenants spatial quality needs while retaining historic fabric to the greatest extent. and now we have the architect here to talk about the seismic, um, uh, upgrades. hi, i'm eric robinson, i'm a partner with paulett taggart architects, where the architects working with mercy. we also have steve lepisto, who is our structural engineer from. pardon me, from dci engineers. um we go to the next slide. um, the project, the building, as you can see, has these lightwell cutouts. and that creates a sort of discontinuous floor plate. so the combination of that discontinuous floor plate and the masonry walls at the exterior are real seismic risks.

it's actually a very vulnerable building. it's a building with a vulnerable population. so the primary scope of the project is the voluntary seismic upgrade. we're doing the seismic upgrade because that's part of the funding requirements with state tcac funding. um, we've worked and studied multiple options in terms of how we can make the building seismically safe, starting with keeping all of the structure on the interior, because obviously, as a historic building, we want to avoid the expression of new structure on the exterior. but because of the size of the units, they're quite small. we found that putting the structure on the interior actually made the units almost unlivable. so we really worked a balance between having some of the seismic on the interior and some of the common areas, such as corridors, and putting some of the structure on the exterior . but as alisa mentioned, trying to create a structure with moment frames that are set back from the street that are least impactful to it visually and esthetically. we had actually a really great work session with, uh, shippo up in sacramento to

talk about these alternatives and explain to them how we came to this solution and show them that we had worked through a variety of a variety of systems. i think that's really the crux of the matter. steve is here if you guys have questions, but i think, oh, well, just a couple of views. the view from market street, you can see this is a rendering on the left that shows one of those moment frames that would be inserted into the light. well a more economical solution would have been a brace frame with cross braces. but we're going with a more expensive solution because the moment frame is, is, you know, more visible, more transparent and then you can see this the space between on on franklin, the space between our building and the adjacent building, there will be a brace frame that's exposed in a courtyard there. but you really can't see it from the street. is there another now? that's it. okay. and so if you have further questions, uh, we have the structural engineer here, steve gray. thank you. if that concludes project sponsors presentation, we should take

public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again you need to come forward. seeing none public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. thank you. commissioner warren. um, thank you so much for that presentation. i think it helps for the public to hear that there's a specific the specific reasons why. there's an external frame. we don't want this to be a common thing that happens across the city, where we're adding brace frames and or diagonal or, you know, diagonal buckling brace frames on the exterior of buildings. so it's good to hear that. but, um, and i also wanted to just clarify that you were using the moment frames rather. than the diagonal brace frames, because those were a lot more, um, visually, uh, disruptive to the facade, but also crossed across windows,

which might not be, um, you know , uh, as, as appreciated by the tenants themselves. so i appreciate that. um, and, uh, i wanted to ask just a few questions. um, is the retrofit reversible? which i believe it would be. um, but i would like to have that clarified. and then , um, is it, uh, is the brace frame. pushed out from the facade? so that water does not get caught between the two? or is there some sort of protection ? um, between the brace frame and the brick facade? um, and, uh, those are my questions. thanks again for letting us present the project. um, as far

as reversibility, the project is being designed to be reversible. uh, they would have to be some patching if the, the brace frame gets removed, but we feel confident that that could happen . so, um, you know, in terms of reversibility, we do think it meets that criteria. yeah. and in terms of the penetrations, um , in some places we have spot penetrations that will go through the frame is pulled away from the, the masonry and the majority of places. and they're spot penetrations where we would , you know, basically flash it and waterproof it. there is one there is there are 1 or 2 locations on the sidewall, uh, in that courtyard where we actually have currently the design has a continuous shelf of steel that needs to go along that sidewall that will get flashed. obviously so we're very cognizant of the, you know, protecting the building in terms of water for i did notice that some of the detailing that i saw was going through, um, you know, like a single brick that that

would be basically break the brick. is there a methodology to going through that facade? um, either by taking out the brick and cutting it or any, any. well, there's actually a full repointing of all the bricks. so we're going to have a masonry sub subcontractor on the job who would be performing all that work on the brick. so in certain areas they'll be removing probably removing more brick than ultimately would be removed. once you install everything and then putting brick back around. but doing it in such a way that it's matching the historic character so that you shouldn't see again with repointing everything you shouldn't see patches or changes to the brick, because we'll be reusing the same brick. the detailing showed it going through the brick rather than the joint. so that's that's the reason i'm asking. i think, um, um, you know, ultimately we will be requesting mockups, and i think that once the moment frame gets, you know, located, we'll take a look at that just to make sure that it's an optimal

location. and it's it responses to preservation concerns. okay. great. thank you so much. thank you. any other questions or comments from the commission? is there a motion motion to approve . second anybody. i'll second that. thank you. commissioners on that motion to approve with conditions commissioner vergara yes. commissioner wright, excuse me, commissioner foley i commissioner warren. yes. and commissioner. president. matsuda. yes. so move. commissioners that motion passes unanimously. 4 to 0. commissioner wright, you may rejoin us for item eight, which was also pulled off of consent for case number 2022. hyphen 013043, code a for the property at 1135 powell street for a certificate of appropriateness.

good afternoon again, commissioners rebecca salgado, planning staff, before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to 1135 powell street, located on the west side of powell street between jackson street and washington street. the property is landmark number 235. chinatown branch library, and was considered started in 1921. the project involves work at the historic main reading room, including removal of a non-historic mezzanine, expose, add diagonal seismic brace frames, and ceiling lighting events, installation of concealed concrete and steel seismic plates at portions of the walls and ceilings inside of new lighting and vents at the ceiling, and installation of removable flat panel artwork in the arched niches of the west

elevation. the proposed project also includes work at the roof of both the historic library and the 1996 rear addition, including construction of a new publicly accessible roof deck with a glazed windscreen set back approximately 18ft from the front of the building. um that will be minimally visible from a public right of way. replacement of an existing elevator penthouse with a new elevator, penthouse replacement of non-historic skylights, and replacement and relocation of mechanical equipment. the project also involves work on the powell street facade, including replacement of non-historic aluminum windows with wood entrance doors and windows matching the historic configuration. replace of non-historic entrance doors, non-historic metal pipe railings . modifications to the non-historic secondary entrance stair um, and repairs to the historic facade elements including wood windows, entrance light fixtures and the brick facade. the proposed project also includes exterior alterations to the nonvisible,

all non-historic secondary elevations of the 1996 addition to the library, including window replacement and existing openings and repairs to existing cladding. staff finds that the proposed work will be in conformance with the with the requirements of article ten and the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. the proposed seismic work will bring the volume of the main reading room closer to its historic appearance. while providing improved protection for the historic property in the event of an earthquake. while portions of the historic plaster walls and ceiling and the main reading room will need to be removed for the seismic work, the replacement ornamental plaster will be based on molds taken of the historic walls and ceiling ahead of demolition work . the proposed work at the powell street facade will repair historic cladding and replace incompatible non-historic doors and windows with new doors and windows that align with the historic appearance of the building. the proposed new roof deck will be set back from the front of the building, and story pole mockups were installed to confirm that the deck and associated glass windscreen will be only minimally visible from a public right of way. the roof,

deck and windscreen have a simple contemporary design that is differentiated from, but compatible with, the historic library staff's preliminary recommendation for this project is for approval with conditions. staff has received one additional inquiry from a member of the public since parklets were published, with concerns about the new elevator, penthouse's impact on the light and views from neighboring residential properties. this concludes my presentation. unless there are any questions and the project sponsor also has a brief presentation of the project. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. good morning. um, my name is andy sohn. i'm. let me get this up.

good morning. my name is andy sohn. i'm an architect with san francisco public works. i'm the project lead for this, um, chinatown branch library. this is nancy goldberg from train. rachel she is our historic architect. um, the project that, uh, this project was one of three projects that was not renovated in the 2000 bond program that was called blip in san francisco. there's 27 branches. there's three that were not renovated because this had received a renovation in 1995. um it's a historic building, 1921 carnegie library, one of seven in san francisco, also g. albert landsberg building. he did north beach mission, sunset and presidio branches. uh, it was a north

beach branch until 1958, when it was renamed the chinatown branch library. um, the goals for the project are to, uh, to restore the historic reading room, which you can see in this image here that received an unsympathetic renovation in the 1990s. essentially, the building was considered an envelope for a library project. and, uh, not a lot of thought was given to this. so the interior space of the main reading room was destroyed by these brace frames in this mezzanine. anecdotally it seems that the carnegie library lack marking came about as a result of this project, and this reading room we've had extensive community engagement since 2018. numerous meetings with the public and in other commissions. it's between jackson and washington street,

on powell street and this is an image of the building in the early 1920s, before it had neighbors. you can see that there was an entry at the lower level and an entry on the upper level. and uh, that has changed. and there's images of the reading room. we have very few images. we've we've scoured to find these images for the project. this is the floor plan. and that 1921 and this piece was demolished. the backyard to your right is powell street. the red arrows represent entries. and then this. these are plans from the 1990s. and you can see this is the reading room on the right with the mezzanine above. these are our proposed plans. we want to, uh, provide a larger community room on the ground floor. and on the main floor, restore the historic the grandeur of the historic reading room. this is a roof terrace

that we proposed. there's a roof terrace now on the back of the building. and this is a section through the building where you can see powell street and the roof terrace. setback from the front facade. so we did we did an extensive, uh, facade survey to analyze the condition of the existing masonry. and we found that although the balustrade at the stairway has a lot of damage and many of the balusters need to be replaced overall, the masonry is in good to fair condition in the terracotta that's on the building itself is mostly intact. the brick, the brickwork is also in reasonably good condition iron, although it's very dirty as those of you who visited the building probably noted. and there is also some biological growth, so we anticipate, uh, repairing, uh, the terracotta replacing.

the badly damaged uh units, mostly the balusters and um, giving the building a good cleaning, doing whatever, repointing is necessary. and we've also surveyed the windows, the wood windows that are on the second floor, the upper level are also in good condition. they will be weather stripped so that they're watertight. but, um, and as andy mentioned, the windows at the lower level will be replaced in the reading room itself. um of course, the braced frames and the mezzanines will be removed, which will involve some plaster, uh, removal and replacement. but i believe that much of the plaster was already in impacted by the 90s work that was done. so this is a view of the reading room as proposed

without the braces. um, pending lighting and existing location ins. there's rosettes in the ceiling where there had been previous pendant lights. um, and case work around the perimeter renewed. um and then flexible furnishings inside. this is these reviews of the roof terrace. thank you. that is your time. thank you. commissioners may have follow up questions. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again, you need to come forward seeing none. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners commissioner nageswaran, um, i really appreciate this design and how it's, uh, you know, going to restore the appearance of this carnegie library. um, and it's a reminder of reversibility and the ability to do that is an important part of, uh, rehabilitation mission. so, um, it's, uh, going to be beautiful,

uh, space and well thought out for the needs of that community. and as i understand, they work closely with the community to evolve this design. so appreciate that. um, i, as we toured, i think my fellow commissioners had noted there were other openings as um, and in, in the space that could be, uh, re uncovered. i'm not sure if that has been explored. um, and if they have further comment on that and then the glass railing on the roof, um, you know, when we visited, there was a screening up there that's existing, which is a wooden lattice which really is difficult to see through. and the point of having a six foot, uh, glass, uh, glass screen is to prevent winds. um, and i would say that, um, if that

glazing can be, uh, low glare, um, and not highly reflective, i don't think you're going to do that, but low glare would be probably appreciated by the, you know, view corridor. um, on other roof. roof. um uh, roof gardens. um, and then on. i think that is all those are all my comments. thank you. thank you, commissioner vergara. thank you. uh i'm looking forward to the rebirth of this beautiful building along the lines of that that really excellent plan that you have. and i would echo what commissioner roman said about the windows on the north and the south walls of the original building. i think what i heard at the, at our walkthrough was that that it looks like the windows on the south side of the south wall could be, uh, open to

natural light, but you're not sure about the windows on the north wall, is that could you respond to that? yeah. so the, um, we're looking into it after our meeting. uh, there is there is a space between the, uh, the west and the wall between the building and the adjacent temple . uh, there's there is a gap there. so we could open that up. we have to figure out how to do it. someone in our tour mentioned sprinklers, but we can look into some kind of technology and hopefully do that. the other window on the other side of the building is adjacent to an old building, and it appears that it's not there is a light, a light. well, someone asked that question on our tour. i think it might have been you, commissioner vergara, and it is, um, it doesn't seem to be lined up with our window for some reason, but we're going to verify that and if possible, we'll attempt to do something there. it'd be wonderful if all those windows could be opened. the natural light. thank you.

thank you, commissioner wright. yeah i would, i would just echo that, um, as well. um, and i think even if, um, you know, there's not a lot of light coming through, having, just having it back lit and getting a little bit of light in kind of, um, add to the symmetry of the space and the quality of the space. uh, i would point out, too, that we, we spoke, uh, in on the site about, um, two, two original openings that had been covered over by the addition on the upper level face west, um, in in the northernmost bay and the southernmost bay. and that, you know, we're not i'm not really asking about those because it sounds like they're they're pretty covered with, uh, the new structure, um, that was built in. well existing new structures on 35. right? yeah so, but just to point out that, that those were original openings for the record and matched the, the other window

pattern inside. so i think, um, with the loss of those two openings, it's, you know, it would be even nicer to have the north and the south ones. um, and then i had one other question that occurred to me, um, and i think this might be for nancy, but, um, this is about the balustrade, um, replacement of the terracotta stairs. yeah. and i think that we might have talked about, uh, the anchorage being epoxy coated or something, but i have you considered stainless steel, um, is something that won't corrode and cause the same problems we have now. we'll we'll look. we'll look into that. yes stainless steel, by the way, does eventually corrode, um, especially in our marine environment. but we'll, we'll look at putting in the most, um, uh, whatever's going to have the longest, the longest. yeah. the

best perfect. the best material. great thank you. um, i had two questions, and i asked this at the site visit meeting, but. and i know that you have done undergone a lot of community, um, meetings in charettes, but this library is specifically used now for a lot of people who are of chinese descent and placement and. there's going to be a realignment of rooms and things like that, which are very important in the chinese culture. and i just want to make sure that this new placement or new position of rooms is very culturally sensitive to the community, to the particular users of the library. now. and my second question, i guess, is more for miss salgado about the new comment that came in about this particular project. and if that has been addressed by by the planning department staff or the project sponsor. rebecca

salgado, planning staff, um, yes. that comment was addressed. the concern was about how the new elevator bulkhead might block light and views from buildings whose rear windows were facing toward the elevator bulkhead. um, kind of on either side of the library to the north and south. um, some specific addresses were were called out on washington street and, uh, jackson on jackson street. um, and so i, uh, andi prepared some studies with some further information on, um, showing how many feet away the rear facades of those buildings were from the from the new elevator. and, uh, how the views from those buildings would not be significantly affected by the new elevator bulkhead. and, um, member of the public said they, uh, accepted that, and they would get back if they had any other questions. but i have not

heard anything further very good. thank you. uh, commissioner wright, did you have a follow up question? i thought of one more. one more thing. um, and that's also on the tour at the end, we were talking about the window shading . um, and, you know, i guess shades that are currently there and the possibility of being sensitive and i know that you guys are going to think more about strategies for that, but that, uh, if glare, um, is an issue that sometimes there are appropriate, uh, uh, glazing films that help with energy and glare, that aren't, you know, adding mirrored, uh, reflectiveness or darkness to the, the windows. so just something to consider. but to get on the record. understood. we'll look into that. um that's a good point. and we haven't we haven't thought out the window shades yet because they have the center pivot windows, you know. anyway, so thank you. thank you.

motion to approve. is there a second, uh, can i add something before i would i would suggest that we move to approve with the understanding that if at all possible, the windows on the north and south walls of the original building will be open to natural light. or is that you can add that as a condition? i accept that as a condition, and also that the type of glass will be non-glare. i can accept both those conditions. and i'll second that. thank you. there's nothing further. commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions as amended, to include that the north and south um wind doors, uh, of the original. 1921 structure of the original structure are open to natural light and non-glare glazing. uh at the um roof uh,

garden. at the roof. yes the guardrail, the guardrail at the roof. at the guardrail of the roof on that motion, commissioner vergara. yes commissioner. wright. yes, commissioner. foley i commissioner warren and commissioner. president. matsuda. yes so move. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. commissioners, i will place us, um, on items nine a through. h for our case numbers. request to recuse on 90 and nine b. let me just read them into the record real quick. um, for case numbers

2024 hyphen 000774 lbr 2024 hyphen 00777 lbr 2024. hyphen. 000776 lbr 2024. hyphen 000779 lbr 2024. hyphen. 000781 lbr 2024. hyphen. 000782 lbr 2024. hyphen 000783 lbr and 2024. hyphen 000784 lbr for properties at 82 marina boulevard, fort mason building a two marina boulevard. fort mason building, a at 813 divisadero street, 440 sutter street. 700 stockton street, 1581 webster street. number 206 1555 fillmore street. 631 kearney street, respectively. these are all legacy business registry applications and if i understand correctly, commissioner august

warren, you're requesting to be recused from items nine a and b and commissioner matsuda, you are requesting to be recused from item nine f? yes, that's correct. very good motion to recuse both. second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion to recuse commissioner warren from items nine a and b and commissioner matsuda from item nine f, commissioner vergara. yes. commissioner wright. yes missioner. foley i commissioner nougat. warren. yes. and commission president. matsuda. yes. so move. commissioners that motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0. commissioners before we begin, i just want to take the time to introduce you to one of our newest staff members who is joining us in front of the historic preservation commission. for the first time, we want to welcome john dacey, who is a senior planner that has been with the department for three months, and he is working on our district five and eight current planning team john previously worked at the city of vallejo, pittsburg, los angeles and the county of kern. he

attended uc berkeley, receiving a bachelor's of arts and urban studies, and is an east bay native. we want to welcome him to the historic preservation commission. thank you. welcome. good afternoon, commissioners elena moore, planning staff. we have eight legacy businesses today. staff will present and afterwards members of the public and business representatives will have a chance to share their stories during public comment. i will hand it off to edgar now for the first legacy business. excellent. good afternoon, commissioners. edgar oropeza with department staff presenting the first two legacy business applications as the first applicant is san francisco camerawork, located at fort mason two marina boulevard building a san francisco camerawork is a nonprofit art gallery dedicated to new ideas and directions in photography. the gallery provokes discovery, experimentation, and exchange through exhibitions and experiences for all who value

new ideas and photography. since 1974, san francisco camerawork has offered exhibitions, workshops and lectures focused focused on experimentation, unconventional techniques, and sociopolitical themes. san francisco camerawork supports and grows san francisco's photography community and its supporters. as a long standing leader in san francisco's art scenes, its workshops and exhibitions also draw students and patrons from around the bay area, and visitors from around the world. staff supports this application and recommends the resolution to add san francisco camera works to the legacy business registry. the second applicant is greens restaurant, also located at fort mason. two marina boulevard building a since 1979, greens restaurant has offered a distinct and ever changing vegetarian menus dedicated to the seasonal harvest of local farmers and the organic gardens of its farm, green gulch, located just 14 miles away in marin county, with panoramic views of the golden gate bridge, marin headlands and

local sea life. the greens restaurant's dining room features grand windows stretching from floor to ceiling, and a spacious warehouse at fort mason center for the arts and culture. greens restaurant is the county's first and most honored restaurant for gourmet vegetarian dining. many customers come not only for the cuisine and the unique views, but as a pilgrimage to a pioneer pioneering restaurant in california cuisine and the farm to table movement. staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add greens restaurant to the legacy business. this concludes my presentation. next up is my colleague john dacey. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners john dacey, planning staff. the third legacy business application. we have today is for everlasting tattoo, a tattoo parlor that has operated for 32 years in the western addition and north of the panhandle neighborhoods since 2000. everlasting tattoo has been located on the northwest corner

of divisadero and fulton streets. found aaron kane is well known in tattoo industry for his groundbreaking biomechanics style of art, and for his hand-crafted tattoo machines. today together with current owner mike davis and tim leahy, the artists were innovators in a type of art that people were and are still putting on their bodies. the new school tattoo movement of the 90s, also known as neo traditional or illustrative tattoo, draws inspiration from traditional american and japanese tattoo art while incorporating bold colors, exaggerated proportions, and creative designs. as the only tattoo studio in the neighborhood, everlasting tattoo is a staple of this commercial district and functions as an important social and cultural hub with its iconic glowing neon sign, the storefront window residents are drawn to the store's atmosphere and cultural legacy every lasting tattoos, emphasis on quality, creativity and craft is a gleaming example of what a legacy business is. this shop brings joy to its customers and vibrancy to the neighborhood, helping capture the imagination of people and transforming it into art. the

business is committed to maintaining their neon signage, highest level of body art and identity as a tattoo shop, and social and cultural hub for the community. staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add everlasting tattoo to the legacy business registry. i will now hand it over to my colleague michelle langley. thank you. thank you. hello, commissioners. michelle langley, department staff, the fourth legacy business application we have today is for julie jewelry collection, a 39 year old high end and high fine jewelry store originally opened by shirley tong at 214 sutter street in 1985 when she was 25 years old. born and raised in hong kong, shirley immigrated to the us in 1982 and opened a jewelry store to showcase the jewelry that her family manufactured in hong kong. a second location. for 4440 sutter was opened in 1993. in the ground floor of the historic art

deco 450 sutter building in jewelry. jewelry collection sells jewelry made with precious metals and genuine gemstones, along with custom engagement and bridal jewelry, serving a diverse clientele base, including a loyal, including loyal long time customers, tourists, celebrities, politicians, business executives and workers in nearby office buildings. while the original location closed in 2004, shirley continues to run the business today with her husband and daughter. both online and at four 4040, sutter jewelry collection contributes to the cultural fabric of downtown san francisco. as an immigrant minority and women owned business, the business is committed to maintaining their high end jewelry for wholesale prices offerings. their excellent customer service, and building lifelong relationships with customers. staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add the jewelry

collection to the legacy business registry. i will now hand it over to my colleague elena. more. elena more planning staff. the fifth legacy business application that we have is for liguria bakery, a family owned business on the corner of stockton and filbert street specializing in fresh focaccia and italian flatbread. opened in 1911 by ambrogio soracco, who had recently immigrated from the liguria region of italy, liguria bakery has been an essential piece of north beach north beach's cultural fabric for 113 years. today it is still owned and operated by members of the sorokko family. liguria bakery is one of the last remaining businesses of its kind. the dough is mixed in an antique stainless steel machine and baked in the original brick oven from 1911, the family still uses

ambrosio's original recipe from liguria to bake their signature focaccia. to this day, many generations of families continue to come to the corner of stockton and filbert streets to purchase this nostalgic focaccia . it is truly a one of a kind business. liguria bakery is committed to maintaining their focaccia offerings, their signature white parchment wrapping their brick oven and stainless steel dough mixer, and the iconic mural on the exterior of the building. staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add liguria bakery to the legacy business registry. and the next legacy business application we have is for on the bridge, an iconic japanese restaurant located on the webster street bridge in the kinokuniya building in japantown town. the business is run by owners mitsuhiro and yolanda,

along with their daughters, opened in 1992, the restaurant was one of the first in san francisco to specialize in yoshoku style food, which is a fusion of japanese and european cuisines. today they they are best known for their shinju style chicken stock curry, their beef stock curry, and yoshoku style wafu pastas, along with their extensive offerings of japanese beer and sake on the bridge restaurant, attracts a diverse clientele of both locals and tourists. many customers share an appreciation for and curiosity about japanese culture . fittingly, located on the bridge, the restaurant is a true cultural connector where the restaurant is committed to maintaining their yoshoku style cuisine, their offerings of japanese beer and sake, and anime, film and tv show collection for patrons to enjoy. staff supports this application

and recommends a resolution to add on the bridge to the legacy business registry. i will hand it off to maggie next. thank you . good afternoon, commissioners. uh, maggie dong, planning department staff. um, the seventh legacy business that is before you is for progress cleaners, a 49 year old cleaning and laundry business on fillmore street and geary boulevard. the business offers same day dry cleaning, laundry and alteration services. was founded by david yip. he and his wife susanna yip immigrated from hong kong in 1970. um david founded the business in 1975. after training in the dry cleaning. after training in the dry cleaning industry with his brother, who also had his own dry cleaning business in san francisco. in 1992, susanna took over the business after david david's passing from cancer. their son sammy yip took over in 2001 when

susanna retired, and the business has remained a meeting place for multiple generations of local residents to catch up and stay informed about community events, the business is committed to safeguarding their dry cleaning, laundry and alteration services as awning sign and brick exterior staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add progress cleaners to the legacy business registry. um the eighth legacy business that is before you is for rag lounge, a 39 year old chinese restaurant on kearny and commercial street. rag lounge is known for their salt and pepper crab, orange special beef and lychee martinis. the business is one of a few remaining banquet halls in chinatown, and banquets are often hosted by families or community organizations to celebrate important milestones. rag lounge was founded by henry

hung and kenson wong in 1985. henry hung. immigrated from china and worked as a contractor before saving up enough money to open rnt lounge. um as his first restaurant. jo ling joined as a co-owner in 1996, and the business expanded from only occupying the basement story to the um, occupying three stories within the building and adding a full bar and vip rooms. in 1998, ken's and wong left in 2018 to start his own business, and jo ling retired in 2021. henry's daughter, chelsea hung joined the business as a co-owner in 2021. the business has supported the community by donating to nonprofit organizations, employing local residents, and sourcing from local vendors. the business is committed to safeguarding their restaurant, featuring cantonese cuisine and the restaurant's logo. staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add

rnt lounge to the legacy business registry, and this concludes the legacy business presentations. thank you. thank you for that. we should take public comment on any of these legacy business registry applications. again you need to come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. good afternoon, commissioners. woody labounty from san francisco heritage. uh, we support all of the all eight of these. of course, i just want to call out three of them, particularly, uh, on the bridge is an irreplaceable san francisco spot of hospital and culture for many people visiting japantown tourists i know who come here on the bridge is what they remember about japantown. it is a sort of gateway to a lot of people to understand japanese culture who come from other places and don't really have that exposure in other places. and on the bridge

is what they remember about japantown. um, it carries that mall in a lot of ways to people's minds. and the other day, karen chi, who's on our board, uh, told me that patti smith, the singer is a is a loves on the bridge. so i'm not going to argue with patti smith. um, the other two. i actually wrote the nominations for, but i still think they're worthy of, uh, being here. uh, greens, you can find dozens of people more important than anybody in this room to talk about the significance of greens. and i just want to make a correction. i think, um, when it was brought before you, the gentleman called it the county's first, uh, gourmet vegetarian restaurant. it's the country's first gourmet vegetarian restaurant. and so it is a seminal, a unique and in some ways, a world changing restaurant. and my wife and i could walk in on friday without a reservation and see have views of the golden gate bridge and have some amazing spinach soup.

so thank you. greens and last is san francisco camerawork. so often we think of these legacy businesses as being associated with a defined film physical place in a community. but here is a great example of one that's had to move multiple times. but its importance is undiminished because of those relocations. this is a unique institution, responsive for launching the careers of several prominent artists, and one of the prime reasons that san francisco is considered one of the world's most important centers for creative photography. so thank you very much for considering these. are there any other members of the public that wish to make public comment on any of the legacy businesses? okay seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners again, commissioner august warren is his, um, recused from items nine a and b and commissioner matsuda is recused from items nine f. so

we should take up those matters. um, separately. commissioner foley, uh, we have a long agenda in front of us, but i do want to say, and i think i can speak for all the commissioners, that we're really excited when you all come up here and most of these places i've eaten or drank in, as you most of the people know, that's kind of what i do. and for camera works really exciting. i'm i'm excited for what you've done. i'm excited for the future for you and just super great work. so thank you very much, commissioner. right. thank you. i would just echo what commissioner foley said and also add that, you know, some sometimes i know a lot of the businesses that are coming before us and sometimes i don't ahead of, um, the scheduled hearing and i think that, um, this time i'm learning about a lot of new businesses, and i'm always excited to try learn about the new businesses and

try, try the new businesses. and i think that really is kind of the point of the program is, um, educating other for, uh, other san franciscans on these great businesses that we have in the city. and so thank you very much for your dedication. thank you. any other comments from the commission? i just have one comment. um maybe particularly directed at mr. carrillo. i know that many of the small businesses come before you and ask for a lot of assistance. and what i would like to encourage is when they come before you, is that they leave a piece of their business with them, particularly a menu or something that can never be replaced. and that truly reflects their business. and i say this because i've been working on an an archive project where we want to know what has happened, what has happened to a particular community, what has happened to a particular person,

not at a high level, but at the at the level that i think a lot of us can understand and i think a lot of us, looking back on this legacy program, maybe 30 years from now or 50 years from now, we'll see these pieces of memorabilia and local history and we'll really appreciate the fact that these businesses really stuck it out through thick and thin. so i just encourage more of a purge of what they have in their own family history. and as mr. labounty pointed out earlier, i think the legacy businesses are one way that we can get all people and all communities involved for so long, preservation has been a very elitist world, and many communities have not felt that their history or have been told that their history has not been important as others. so i think the legacy business program is a way that we can appreciate all neighborhoods and all peoples. so thank you. mr. approved 90 and nine f, nine a and nine b,

nine e and 99a and nine b. yeah. nine a and nine b second. thank you commissioners, on that motion to adopt recommendations for approval for items nine a and b, commissioner vergara. yes. commissioner wright. yes. commissioner. foley i and commissioner. president. matsuda. yes. so move. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 4 to 0 nine f. is there a motion for nine f? motion to approve nine f? second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to adopt a recommendation for approval for the for item nine f commissioner vergara. yes. commissioner. wright. yes commissioner. foley i and commissioner warren. yes. so move. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to 0 on the remaining legacy business registry applications must.

prove 9c9de9e, g and g h h h. second, thank you, commissioners , on that motion to adopt recommendation for approvals on the remaining legacy business registry applicants. commissioner vergara. yes, commissioner. wright. yes. commissioner. foley i. commissioner warren. yes and commissioner. president. matsuda. yes. so move. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0, and we'll place us on item ten. case number 2023, hyphen 01148coa at 945 minnesota street. this is a request for a certificate of appropriateness. good afternoon, commissioners rich sucre, department staff. i'm here on behalf of monica yokomichi. and i'm also joined by my colleague vincent page. the project before you is a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed project at 945 minnesota street, which is a contributor to the dogpatch landmark district. the proposed project abates work

completed beyond the scope of work that was previously approved under hpc motion number 422. this work includes removal and reframing the rear portion of the first and second floors of the building. the project also includes reconstruction of the rear portion of the building and construction of a two story addition, as well as modifications of window openings and the addition of a roof deck. to date, the department has received one letter of opposition from the dogpatch neighborhood association relative to this project, and this building, our enforcement team is actively monitoring and working on this property. as detailed in the case report. planning staff has also verified all drawings and the existing condition of the site. department staff recommends approval with conditions given the site history and work at this property completed without benefit of a permit. we have included eight separate conditions of approval that will assist us in monitoring the work on the property and ensuring that the elements are undertaken. in reference to article ten of the planning code, the project sponsor is present and has prepared a short presentation. i'm available for any questions and this concludes

my presentation. thank you. thank you project sponsor. you have five minutes. good afternoon commissioners. my name is sue hale. i'm the architect on the project. i've been involved with this project since 2019. it's went through, uh, three different owners. right now. it's owned by the bank. uh, initially, uh, there was some opposition to the rear expansion of the building. uh, the rear expansion, according to the neighbor who felt it encroached into the mid-block open space, was actually existing since 1936. aerial photograph. so we got our project approved, and, uh, the new owner came. we did some minor modifications. the envelope was still stayed the same. they went over and beyond the scope of work in terms of demolition. with regards to this project. at the rear, that old structure was substandard in quality. we they removed more

material than they should have. that's why we're before you again with respect to this project. um, this project just on the overhead. um i can show you the progression of, of. this this initially was the first, uh, proposal with the existing conditions. we had replaced the stairs and rebuilt some of those existing conditions. um, the one that was. can you make sure you're using. i'm sorry. thank you. uh, the one this is an existing condition right now. the way it was built, the stairs aren't included because the stairs were not built. but it's basically the same footprint as the one before. without the stairs. and currently it's, uh. we brought it back to the 25% rear yard setback, which is the 30% rear yard setback with, i believe, an encroaching agent, which is allowed for two stories to the 25% rear yard setback. um

the building basically looks like this. and, uh, it's going to remain the same currently. the way it's built is like this without the double hung window on the second level. and the front and the rear. i mean, that was the original, uh, building at the front. this was a building that had a gable roof. it had burnt, i think, back in the 60s or 70s. and the gable roof was taken off. so there's been some, um, alteration to the original intent of this building . i'm sorry, i don't have the photographs. i forgot to bring them, uh, the building from the side elevations are basically this is what's proposed currently, where the rear is set back, uh, to, uh, the conforming rear yard setback. it's, uh,

prior this was original back of the building, um, with the staircase at the back, which is not their currently. and the original building was basically like this with a back portion. basically the volume is the same, except we infilled underneath both, uh, the first floor. um, so what we're trying to do is just restore the building. the building is applied to the neighborhood right now. it's been sitting in in disrepair for the last 4 or 5 years. um and we're trying to bring it back and restore it with conformity to the rear yard setback. if there's any questions, i'm here for questions. thank you. thank you, thank you. if that concludes the sponsors presentation, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. please come forward. good afternoon. commissioners my name is

catherine delaney and i'm from the dogpatch neighborhood association. and i sent you a packet regarding this building. um, i won't go into the read my letter, the details, unless you like me to, but i. i'll just reiterate our our concerns and community. um, the various project sponsors disingenuous permitting and serial violations that have occurred since 2017. the fact that a convicted building inspector known to have signed off on complaint on non-compliant and unsafe work has approved work on this project. bernie curran is his name. um, poor site management, maintenance and site production to the degree that the building condition has seriously deteriorated beyond being exposed to the elements, the site itself has been a nuisance and a hazard for more than two years and sits in a dilapidated state even today, and i've attached a packet with photographs, documentation from the last few days that we took, um, and a lack of consideration and outreach to community in light of the above mentioned behavior. on behalf of the project sponsor and the owners,

i know it's changed hands multiple times. um, we're requesting two things. one is that the hpc require the property owner of 945 minnesota to bring the structure into compliance with the project sponsors. october 3rd proposed plans. we understand that this may be costly and time consuming process, but we believe that it is necessary in light of the behavior of this owner or multiple owners and their architect contractors and dbe. secondly that dbe and planning examine this process that led to the seven years of incremental violations that were never fully stopped and consider a better site monitoring system that takes the community's complaints seriously. more aggressive action earlier to complaints indicating clear code violations may have ensured that this house did not end up in the condition it is today, which is a great loss for everyone. thank you. thank you. commissioners my name

is spencer gash and i'm the complaining neighbor regarding this, uh, this travesty. i'd like to read a section of your code. section 134 purpose. the rear your rear yard requirements of section 134 are intended to one. assure the protection and continuation of established mid-block, landscaped open spaces. this project proposes to have a 25 foot rear yard, all the surrounding properties have a 33 to 37 foot rear yard. um, i'm requesting this property be sent back to the planning department to have a code compliant rear yard and mid-block open space. thank you very much. thank you. any other members of the public interested to make comment. okay. last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners, commissioners,

commissioner foley. yeah i, i think everybody understands this this this whole process really frustrate me. and i want to say to the dogpatch neighborhood, uh, group, it's very frustrating when things like this slip through the cracks. i think the planning department and the planning and code enforcement have actually done a great job. and they're still doing a great job through multiple owners. and i feel your pain both in the neighbor perspective and the dogpatch. and i appreciate that you're so actively involved. i do know the architect. i'm on the project. i have not talked to him about it. i would like to know, is it owned by a bank now? who is actually the owner of the real property. hello, keenan howard. um, keenan howard realty. um, the property is bank owned and i'm the local agent for the property. um,

we've been the bank. who is the bank? um, i worked for fay fay service. and as an asset management company. um, wilmington trust is the owner of the property. thank you. that's all i have to say. any other comments from the commission? commissioner warren? um, could planning reiterate what the conditions are on this project. hi, commissioners. thank you for the question. so we have eight conditions of approval. so the first one is prior to the building permit issuance, the project sponsor shall submit product cut sheets to the planning department preservation staff for the proposed rear windows, doors and roof deck railings for review and approval number two, the project sponsor shall obtain an issued building permit within 60 days. number three, within 15 days of building permit issuance. the project sponsor shall submit a

construction schedule for review and approval by the planning department enforcement staff number four within 15 days of the certificate of appropriateness approval, the project sponsor and or owner shall conduct an assessment to determine if the building has suffered water damage and provide adequate means to dehumidify the building. the project sponsor shall submit a report within 15 days of the assessment to the planning department detailing results of the assessment and proposed treatments. treatments shall be implemented within 30 days after the report has been submitted. additionally, all treatments shall be maintained and continued during construction if necessary. number five prior to construction and no later than 30 days of the certificate of appropriateness approval, the project sponsor and or owner shall protect the historic building, maintain it in watertight condition, including continued use of dehumidify equipment as needed and keep its overall exterior appearance tidy . the project sponsor shall provide planning department enforcement staff with monthly updates regarding maintenance,

protection and general upkeep of the property. p six prior to construction, the project sponsor shall conduct a pre-construction walkthrough with planning department enforcement staff and submit detailed photographic documentation to the department to thoroughly record any conditions that need to be addressed. seven the project sponsor shall submit monthly progress of construction, maintenance of the building exterior in a tidy condition and treatments of addressing water damage to the planning department. enforcement staff via email with captions and photographs of completed work. and finally eight. the project sponsor shall submit a schedule of periodic shall schedule periodic site visits no less than every three months with a planning department, preservation and or enforcement staff during construction to monitor the project progress and a final inspection. confirm full abatement of all violations prior to final permit. sign off by the department of building inspection. um, so you know, i think the enforcement staff has,

uh, considered a lot of what the neighborhood has is concerned with. um, and i think establishing the. parameters by which they will provide a schedule and completion and protection of this building is, is, um, you know, established now. so it's helpful in that degree. um, so i'm hopeful that with this, um, final, you know, version of the building that we can come complete this project. um, so, so i'd rather not delay it further and damage the building further. i'd like to get established first. what is going to get completed and keep going with it. and hopefully by the end of this year, we'll have this completed and off the table . um, my main concern is the water damage in the building and that it could, um, uh, be a long

terme issue with, with building materials inside the building. so that needs to be closed, be monitored. thank you. uh, commissioner. right uh, yes. thank you. um, i think this is a pretty thorough list of conditions, um, setting out timelines and expectations. um, one thing that, i mean, i guess it will become more clear once the current condition is assessed. uh, but is there any any rough sense of when hopeful sense as to when this might be done? uh, so that the neighborhood can have some, um, kind of comfort and then also, um, related to that, i it does sound like, uh, there should be a, um, uh, progress updates. uh, but maybe those are not. uh, i'm not sure, actually, if the

neighborhood association is privy to those updates and if they could be, um, since there's been concern about this. um, good afternoon, commissioners. vincent page, enforcement planner. um, it's really difficult with enforcement cases to know. know when everything will be fixed. ideally, we like it to be done right away. um, but i in my work on the enforcement team, it's just, you know, we have to use just monetary penalties. usually as the incentive to make things happen quickly. this property does have, um, a notice of violation. so if at any point during the enforcement process we see lagging on the part of the property owner, we would notify them of a ten day, ten day, 15 day timeline to come back into compliance and then penalties of $1,000 a day would apply, and those would be in a lien on the title. so we do. we'll just have to hope that they can work with us, and then we'll follow up. commissioner

vergara. you actually answered my question because my question was about the penalties that we endorsed at one of our december meetings last year, and i was wondering if those penalties are now increase. the penalties increase. yes and so i was just wondering if there in now enforced and whether they apply in this case high commissioner. um okay. yes. um, so the penalties that you provided and the guidance that you gave to our zoning administrator will basically give us the ability to enforce or apply penalties if we see that the sponsor is not in compliance with what the commission has approved or will approve. um, also, just as a note to address commissioner wright's comment on the neighborhood group, the neighborhood group is more than welcome to reach out to the assigned planner, monica, or one of the enforcement staff in terms of updates, basically, to see what's going on on the project and how the project is meeting the tenants that the hpc

may put on him. so thank you, commissioner foley. yeah, i would just want to say to the to the neighborhood group and to the neighbor is that luckily it's owned by the bank now. and the architect is going to get paid by the bank, and the contractor is going to get paid by the bank. so i think everyone should be operating in good faith moving forward is my hope. and i think reaching out to the planner is a good idea. so thank you very much for your for being focused on this property. i agree, i, i hope that the bank will be, um, very be aware of the concern of the community and i, i really appreciate this letter from the dogpatch association, and i strongly urge you to continue to be vigilant about your monitoring of this project. unless you tell us what's going on. we don't know. so i continue to, um, urge you to continue to keep us informed. if you see something that is not

a part of what we're possibly approving today with the conditions, um, these are very serious allegations against this particular property owner and the property. so i'm hoping that the architect and the bank will carefully listen to the, um, various important. and i think, continued, uh, comment of the dogpatch neighborhood and, and stay in touch with them as this project goes forward. so i don't know, this project has been continued. it is now before us, uh, to be be, uh, approved with conditions. did any of the commissioners want to add further conditions to the coa motion to approve the conditions as. a second. if there's nothing further, commissioner, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this item with conditions on that motion. commissioner vergara. yes, commissioner. right. yes, commissioner. foley i, commissioner warren. yes and

commissioner. president. matsuda. yes so move. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0, and we'll place this on item 11 for case number 2016. hyphen 013156s, rv zero three. for the citywide historic context statement, african american citywide historic context statement. this is for your consideration to adopt, modify, or disapprove. uh, good afternoon, commissioners francis mcmillan, planning department staff. i'm joined today by my colleague ashley lindsay. the item before you today is consideration to adopt the african american citywide historic context statement. today's presentation will provide an overview of the project revisions to the historic context statement. since it was last reviewed by the commission, community outreach, feedback and next steps with engagement, partnerships and revisions to the report. the african american

citywide historic context statement chronicles the history of the african american community in san francisco from the mexican and spanish colonial periods through the present day. the context statement identifies major themes in the history of the african american community and chronicles in the chapters listed here. the founding of cultural movements, community and religious institutions. the gains and struggles of the civil rights era profiles visual and performing artists and the venues where they created and performed and celebrates the lives and legacies of black san franciscans from the 19th century through today. the historic context statement identifies more than 40 properties associated with african american history that are potentially eligible for local landmark designation, a sample of which are seen here. the context further recommends supporting long standing, community owned businesses and institutions through the san francisco legacy business registry and preservation fund, and the creation of walking tours, educational programs, and educational programing focused on youth engagement. though the

historic context statement is sweeping in its scope, it is not an exhaustive history of the african american community. in san francisco. as a reminder, historic context statements are not intended to be exhaustive histories. their purpose is to focus on the key periods and a community, neighborhood, or city history critical to understanding the built environment and provide a framework for identifying resources. the african american historic context statement will aid community history advocates and city planners, and the identification, documentation, recognition, and protection of buildings and sites associated with the social and cultural heritage of san francisco's african american community and as noted throughout the african american history, citywide historic context statement. historic context statements are also considered living documents and are updated as new information is learned and the people about the people and places important to san francisco's communities. since it has been some time since. since some time has passed since the commission reviewed the historic context statement, i'd like to briefly summarize the project's history and recent outreach efforts. the african

american citywide historic context statement was initiated in 2013 and supported by a grant from the historic preservation fund committee. this project reflects the work of numerous community members, historians, and organizations along with preservation professionals and city staff. in the historic context statement built upon existing african american scholarship, including that of doctor albert broussard, sue bailey thurman, delilah beasley, and others, assistant advisory group, consisting of community historians, activists, and planning professionals, guided the completion of the draft. a draft of the report, written by tim kelley consulting verplanck historic, historic preservation consulting alfred william, consultant and planning department staff, was published in january 2016, and in may 2016 the stark preservation commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the draft. public comment indicated that additional research and a more expansive document was necessary to present a more complete, accurate and informed history. following receipt of public comment, department

preservation staff worked with the san francisco african american historical and cultural society. on addition, additional community outreach, planning, and revisions to the document. in 2017, the hpc granted an indefinite continuance to allow time to complete revisions to the report and consult further with the african american historical and cultural society. major revisions to the context statement were completed in 2019 by preservation staff, and following the revisions following revisions on the context statement and community engagement was put on hold due to the pandemic beginning in 2022, a series of focus groups were organized and led by the san francisco human rights commission and supported by department of preservation staff . the purpose of the focus groups was to provide an overview of the context statement, discuss the potential landmarks identified in the report, and to learn about additional places of significance throughout the city . in the fall of 2023 and 2024, a series of community events were held to raise awareness of

the context statement and to engage with community to learn if there are gaps in information and to ask how community would like important places recognized and celebrated. in september 2023, an open forum was planned in partnership with us with the san francisco african american arts and cultural district and the doctor george w davis senior center was hosted by the center on january 20th, the department tabled at the ingleside branch library as part of their annual open house and a second community forum planned in partnership with the booker t washington community service center, was hosted at the center in. also in january. the revised context statement presented at these community events addressed specific comments provided following the publication of the 2016 draft. these include expanding the history and significance of significance, discussions of third baptist church, bethel ame church, and first ame zion church, and missing biographies of church leaders and the congregations they led and their work in

community housing, civil rights and social programs, and missing biographies of african american african american professionals, artists, educators, civil rights activists, and community leaders . updates also included the profiling important civil rights , and civic organizations discussing the importance of community and recreation centers and the impact of leadership and staff at these neighborhood institutions also include additional details on land standing businesses and community institutions. the revised report also includes. also includes a foreword by carl williams for the san francisco african american historical and cultural society, expanded histories of african american churches, the contributions of community advocates, leaders, educators, and public figures. an expanded discussion of influential civic organizations, sororities, and fraternities, and professional organizations. additional updates to the draft that extend beyond the feedback received following the publication of the 2016 report include additional content on african american women leaders and african american women's organizations. inclusion of

sites associated with the black panther party expanded discussions of civil rights history in san francisco. present day anti displaced efforts and affordable housing initiatives led by african americans. the historic context statement has been revised further to note the designation of sites associated, associated with african american history, including the japanese ywca, issei women's building, and the church for the fellowship of all peoples and the individual listing of glide memorial church in the national register of historic places in 2022. it also includes a recollection, recollections of jazz historian and actor peter fitzsimons on his childhood growing up in the city's jazz scene, and appendix featuring community leaders and organizations. included in the report. as noted, the community forums and focus groups presented what is included in the context statement and ask the community what they would like to add, recognize and prioritize for further research or designation. these questions focused on several themes included in the context. context statement, such as arts and culture, potential landmarks, community leaders, and

organizations. the following slides include highlights from the generous feedback received at community engagement events, and are included in the community input tracking report. included in your packets. community members were also asked who they would suggest we partner with to explore these areas. suggestions for community partners ranged from individual community members to churches, businesses, social service organizations, and city agencies . we have one addition to the community input tracking report provided in your packets, and that's a table showing the suggested community partners and that's been provided to the commissioners. these excerpts show themes that emerged through analysis of community input, such as gaps in information on people, organizations, and community events that are recommended to be included in the context statement. department response approaches such as further community consultation regarding research recognition opportunities, and estimated timelines for completion, are also highlighted. to illustrate how feedback will be addressed for example, under named leaders and figures not included in the

context statement. updates to educators, health workers, and religious leaders has been identified as a short tum goal as it expands existing themes in the report includes and includes information provided by community members, and was raised at each community event. updates to this theme were updates to this theme are anticipated to be completed over the next year. we also heard suggestions for further recognition of significant african american sites and community leaders and neighborhoods throughout the city. this gap in information is called out in the context statement as an area for further research, and staff has been identifying and reaching out to organizations as potential partners to further expand these community histories. we also learned that the need to recognize the impact and legacy of redevelopment, and to recognizes the recognize the places that were lost, as well as explore opportunities to celebrate and uplift significant , significant community members and places. as indicated here, we received guidance on landmark priorities for the roughly 40 properties identified in the report and through focus groups. we received suggestions for

numerous numerous additional landmarks and long standing businesses that may be potential legacy business candidates over the next year, staff will continue to make updates to the context statement, including incorporating comments of the commission and bringing context content up to date. we will incorporate the submissions of community members and partners, including a revised section on booker t washington community service center provided by the center. staff will continue to strengthen existing partnerships and build new relationships with community members and organizations suggested through outreach. these include ongoing partnerships with the san francisco public library and participation in branch open houses, and working with the library on cataloging, cataloging, context statements so the information contained in these expansive documents is shared more widely with the community. the african american citywide historic context statement will also will continue to inform the work of sf survey. starting next month, staff will work with consultants bridget maley and shane watson to finalize their work on the ocean avenue commercial commercial district survey. this

work will include input operating information from the african american citywide historic context statement to fully tell the story, be fully told the history of this commercial corridor as an african american enclave, we plan to return to the commission to report back with updates to the context statement and work resulting from this from the context statement. finally, the item before you is consideration to adopt the african american citywide historic context statement. today, the commission may adopt the context statement, adopt modifications, or take no action and direct staff to make additional edits to the report. as noted, we will continue with community engagement and partnership building and update this living document as community community input is shared and research progresses. this concludes my presentation. my colleague ashley lindsay and i are available to answer any questions, but first, i want to acknowledge carl williams of the african american historical cultural society and christopher verplanck historic preservation consultants, who i believe are both in attendance, um, for their invaluable contributions to this work. i also wanted to

acknowledge our partners, uh, with our community engagement. the doctor, george w davis senior center, the san francisco african american arts and cultural district, booker t, washington community service center, the san francisco human rights commission, uh, this and the san francisco public library, and the contributions of planning department staff members malik looper and taylor booker have been instrumental in this work, and all the staff members who provided support that community engagement events. thank you. thank you, commissioners, before we, um, open up to the next steps, i just want to kind of conclude the staff presentation and then just acknowledge that this has been a long journey for us, right? long journey that should have happened. and we're happy to be at this point. i also want to specifically recognize, um, mr. al williams, who is in the audience with us, as well as carl williams, who are both essential authors, um, to the document. and that helped basically get us to the point that we're at. we also have a long list of people that i want

to make sure that we acknowledge, and uplift. um, this has not been a planning department project. this has been a community project. and this is something that we recognize is needed to be a community project. um, it's been too long that we have not recognized the important contributions of african americans to san francisco, and we recognize that this is a big step, um, in trying to basically uplift the multiple communities we have. um, so particularly from the george w davis, um, senior center, i want to make sure i recognize michael bennett, who was instrumental in putting together our, uh, forum as well as cathy davis and james evans. um, charles adams for his amazing food as well as the san francisco recovery theater live music. um, for those of you that attended, was great. um, from the african american arts and cultural district. um, erica scott was an amazing partner along with april spears from the human rights commission. doctor cheryl davis and felicia jones were both essential at helping us to create some of the community forums and then also from the booker t washington

community center. shakira smiley , um, erica kimura, james johnson, brett martinez, whipsaw norhala james, marvelous lucas, and chef janetta johns, who also , there's a big theme about great food that we got during these community events. so it was really nice. and then finally, from the library, i just want to recognize michelle jeffers, christina morita, alejandro gallegos, and catherine starr and the staff of the ingleside branch library. um we had a lot of community partners and as you probably saw from francis's presentation, um, it was a lot of work. it's been a long journey, and we are very happy to be at the place that we are right now. so thank you. thank you, thank you. uh we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. please come forward. good afternoon. commissioners. uh, my name is al williams. i'm president of the board of

directors of san francisco african american historical and cultural society. and so as not to be confused, my name was also mentioned as part of the kelly verplank team that was responsible for the initial outreach on the, uh, prior to the development of this version of the contact statement. we're pleased to be here this afternoon and pleased that this finally is before you for some action. uh, carl is going to speak, uh, in just a moment. i wanted to acknowledge the fact that that, uh, the all the great work that's been done, uh, to get to this point, uh, the participate of all the groups that were just mentioned, uh, and saying that we'd also say we're the society is a little bit disappointed that we were not engaged in this phase of the process as well and one of the things that i wanted to, uh, particularly comment on that we stressed early on at the beginning of the process as well

, was that, uh, i think in the language that was presented in the in the presentation that was mentioned of this being a definitive, uh, kind of a representation of the history and presence of african americans in san francisco. that's one of the issues that has come up over and over. there was a lot of concern at the very beginning that this not be perceived of. and i had a chance to speak with many of your staff this not be perceived of as a definitive history. it is a document that represents a collection of some information and a representation, but it is not the history. uh, and there was a lot of concern about that. so i would just urge that, that fine tuning, if you will, uh, be looked at so that that is not conveyed in that in that respect . um, again, we the society supported it, supported this process and continues to support the process and wishes that the commission will take favorable action and approving it so that

we can move this forward and continue to do the, uh, the work that that needs to be done. uh, i think just as a point of an aside, perhaps just listening to the testimony of fani willis, his father, and the atlanta situation the other day, and fani willis, uh, father testified that he has a long history in the bay area and he worked with peter fitzsimons in the fillmore district, uh, on this film that he's doing about his life story. so the reach of what happens here is much, much broader and has a worldwide impact in terms of the history of african americans in san francisco. so thank you very much, and i hope you will act favorably on this, uh, document. thank you.

good afternoon. commissioners. my name is carl williams. i'm a member of the san francisco african american historical and cultural society. i'm also a long time resident and property owner in san francisco. i have owned property and been a resident at 708 broad street in san francisco since. 1977, and um. i i authored the draft forward, which is a document station, and i would just like to say that in times of this significant and importance of this document to the african

american community in san francisco, and as well as others in san francisco who wish to be informed of the historic contributions, cultural and otherwise, that the african american community has made to the city and county of san francisco. this document provides an excellent proof process of acquiring and people with that history. and i think that, uh, in terms of my view to the importance of that, i summarize a hate to quote myself , but i summarize that in the

last paragraph of the draft. forward that i prepared and was honored to be asked to draft this forward and i urge your approval of it. and i appreciate your giving this document and an opportunity to become part of san francisco's history. thank you. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. um, first of all, i just want to say a huge congratulations to francis for pushing this over the finish line. um, and i would

like to point you, um, to page ten of the what i think is called the, um, community input dashboard in your packet. um, uh , point, um, areas of community interest about kind of finishing up the ocean avenue historic district survey and given that ocean avenue is going to be up zoned to 85ft, i would really encourage the commission to think about making that a short terme goal, not a midtum goal, as is specified in the dashboard . um and um, shane and i are very much looking forward to working with moses. i understand that moses has been assigned to the project and is working on it actively, so we'll look forward to, um, uh, furthering that effort as best we can. i want to make clear that our budget has been expended. um, but we will

in order to get that project over the finish line, i am willing to volunteer some time. some time? um, uh, i have already put in a great deal of time into that project, and it is a key component of understanding what happened to the african american community. um, after they were, um, sort of moved out of the fillmore, you know, and i think we really have to understand that history of ocean avenue and celebrate what happened on ocean avenue as a result of um merchants and, um, members of the community and um tenants and landlords using that space for african american, for the african american community. um, and i would also just encourage the members of the public that are here to stay for the next item, because we will be talking a little bit about up zoning ocean avenue to 85ft. thank you. good afternoon,

commissioners. woody labounty from san francisco heritage. this has been a very long road. um, it started actually, even before the historic preservation fund, um, funded the work on the context statement. i remember five years before that, in the mid 2000, when richard brandy and i were working on the omai context statement and saying, you know, talking to many ward and talking to reverend gordon and talking to alex, agnes morton and will reno, there has to be an african american context statement for the city to understand these smaller neighborhoods. you can't just sort of talk about the african american presence in the omai and not be talking about the fillmore. um, but i'm not here to complain. i'm here to congratulate the planning department, who has done an amazing job the last couple of years, especially in engaging the community meaningfully. i

went to a couple of these outreach sessions and they were very well attended, and they were very well engaged, and the people were very well engaged. um, and like mr. williams said, you know, it is not a definitive document and it should not be seen as that. these are always called living documents. and what i think is most encouraging about this draft effort is the planning department has identified wide gaps, has said this is where we need to do more work. and so often these get adopted and then they're just sort of left on the shelf and nobody ever does any work. but now the roadmap has been inserted in the document. so with that i think i encourage you to adopt it as it is, as um, and encourage urged by the planning department's engagement with the community and, and that they see the roadmap forward to make it even better as the city continues to change. so thank you very much. thank you. last call for public comment. seeing

none, public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you. commissioners. thank you, commissioner foley. uh thank you very much. uh, board president matsuda, i, i'd like to say to mr. williams, mr. carl williams, thank you so much for coming out and actually speaking. thank you so much for being involved. and all the other people that were involved that i can't remember all their names. it's pretty a pretty long list. and i, i do want to say to the planning staff when you said it's about the community, it's not about you all. i was really pleased to hear that, and i'm pleased that we're here today and i'm pleased it's a living document. so thank you very much. thank you. commissioner vergara. thank you. it was just a pleasure to spend the weekend reading it. uh, and i did have a couple of questions and i it was a great conversation with miss mcmillan yesterday. and i know we talked about, um, mary ellen pleasant's trees and land marking trees.

trees can be landmarked, but it goes through a not sf planning. is that correct? uh, rich, feel free to jump in if, uh, if i misstate things, but i think urban forestry that can be can landmark trees and the mary ellen pleasant trees are structures of merit under article ten. right. and there is a small plaque there, right now. yes. come visit us in the neighborhood. thank you. thank you. um, and i know that it's a living document. is there a timeline when context statements are looked at by planning to see what updates need to be done? or is it kind of an ad hoc thing? well, our plan, as outlined in our community, the community tracking document, is to continue working on updates and continue with engagement to, you know, fill, fill in the gaps that have been identified and, uh, continue. um, you know, as, as updates, as information is presented by community members. um, as we continue with

engagement. um, so we'll continue to, you know, as a living document, it will be, um, updated regularly. right? so we would plan on coming back after our well, over the next year, um, to, to discuss the updates that have been made that we that were outlined in the presentation and in the community tracking document. great. thank you. thank you. and one of the updates that i did did suggest, which i think is worth, i think he's worth mentioning here, is supervisor terry francois, uh, the first african american, uh, member of the board of supervisors was appointed by mayor shelly in 1964. he had been for three years the head of the san francisco branch of the naacp. he was active in the demonstrations against palace hotel and mel's drive in, and cadillac dealership on van ness avenue. because of their unfair hiring practices. and then once he was on the board of supervisors, it was only six weeks after his appointment that

he ended up being the deciding vote to stop the park panhandle freeway and the commissioner had . add a i'm sorry, a member of the board of supervisors had actually switched his vote from against the freeway to for the freeway. so terry francois made the difference in the 6 to 5 vote. and at the time he voted, he pointed out that putting that freeway in would have involved tearing down 1200 houses along oak street and displacing 4000 odd low and middle income people , and tearing out a thousand trees on the panhandle. and for then it came back after after it was turned down, mayor shelley and governor brown and the state highway department of transportation really wanted that freeway. and it came back a year and a half later, and once again, it was a 6 to 5 vote. and terry francois was part of the majority to save us from that freeway. so for that reason, for

his work in civil rights, i think he definitely deserves his own standalone. um uh, biography in that really excellent report that you've put together. thank you, thank you. i think we all agree, commissioner wright. yes. thank you. uh, well, i want to congratulate everybody that's worked on this. um, what an amazing, um, volume of work we see. you have that in front of you. um, so, so i just actually wanted to, um, say, say that, um , you know, this is separate. really from san francisco history, but, um, i'm from a small town in ohio and have been working on a grassroots, uh, with a grassroots, uh, group there, um, who's interested in saving a building? um, and this building, um, actually has, uh, a cultural a cultural significance. um, aside from just the architecture. and there

are a lot of people that go, uh, kind of into, uh, the process of looking at history and thinking really just about architecture here. um, and so when i was there visiting, visiting home, uh, you know, they asked me to speak about my experience on this commission and my experience in historic preservation. um and i printed and brought some examples of the things that the planning department and, uh, the, the neighborhoods and cultural groups in san francisco work on. and one of them was this volume, um, um, and it was actually it was the draft volume. it wasn't even, um, you know, this, this finished. um, so, so, um, and they they were just gobsmacked at. so i just want to say thank you again because i think that this not only serves san francisco, but it actually serves as inspiration for a lot

of other communities. is, um, nationwide. thank you. i agree, commissioner warren. thank you. um, mr. williams, for the explanation is very helpful in guiding, you know, people as they read this document and i, i found it very welcoming in that sense. um, this work has not ended. as he said, it will continue in the identification and land marking of resources that have been identified and those that have yet to be identified and which are integral to the history of african american experience in san francisco. the contribution of the african american community is to be commended from the development of jazz, the inspired genius of the musicians, sorry and the evolution of religious thought and civic involvement to inform and advocate for their

community. it's really, um, inspiring and, um, up lifting. um in in this you know, the fact that there has been a struggle is that much more special. so i appreciate that greatly. um, this is a precious history and a remembrance. um, and written history carries a weight to it. um, and can continue to evolve with research and discovery, with written history, um, as a broader recognition of the valuable experience as part of the full fabric of this society. um, i am most grateful for the concerted efforts of the community in engagement in this process and writing this monumental work. um i hope that this context statement will become a series of presentations that maybe you would have at the

library or at the community center, or any number of schools , um, to really reinforce force to youth and adults. the richness of history, the history that has so many people involved in it that we are compelled to do be to be in awe of it. so i appreciate that very much. and i hope that that in in the way that we express it orally, that it's it creates a magnitude that reaches out more broadly to the, um, the overall community to really appreciate, um, the african american experience here . um, one thing i noticed was, um, and because i work at a fort mason center for, um, i know some of the history at fort mason, which was a military base that the us army had, and, and,

um, as you may know, um, about a million people, million african americans served in the military during the second world war. and 80% of them were in logistics. and it just so happens fort mason, the army at fort mason was involved in, um, in supplying soldiers and supplies throughout the pacific rim and were run by the quartermaster corps, which was predominant african american and i hope that you will include that history in in this work as well. all um, and i have connections to people that served at fort mason. so who are african american. so i would i would love to share that as well. and congratulations. and, um, i'm so excited to see this. thank you. thank you. and i just had a few comments of my own. i didn't 11 years is a long time for this to be brought

before us in a final document for us to approve. so that's and i don't know if i should admit this, but i was around 11 years ago, um, when this kind of first started coming up and the discussion about how to move forward was introduced. and one of the things i noticed in the foreword of the document that it's kind of just stops at 2019. um, and i really think that there have been a lot of people able to push it forward from 2019 to 2024. i mean, it mentions a former director, ram, but, um, this guy next to me, director hylis, really was one of the leaders who really wanted to push it forward. and i don't say that just because he's sitting next to me. i really do think that this was a genuine thing that he really thought needed to get off the floor and into people's hands so we could hear community input. so i really encourage that. we mention not only the people that mr. sucrée mentioned, but i

think leaders in the planning department who really put some genuine time, effort and resources to make sure that this move forward. and then just in terms of the landmark dates, not not to do any kind of self promotion, but i think that from the date that the social and racial equity priority took place to what you see in terms of landmarks that really deal with underrepresented and underserved communities and structures and cultures, uh, saw an uptick and i really think that maybe dates can help to reflect that. um, and then this thing, um, the history was, i thought, very well documented. and, um, i think that we need to further document that history, particularly the history dealing with, um, overt racism, overt discrimination and all the racial covenants that that prevent, uh, prohibited people

from owning homes or from living where they wanted to live. and it's great to talk about it. and believe me, i think we should talk about it. but i think what would help that conversation is to actually show these documents that were in place that made these restrictions. people you know, people unfortunately don't believe that such documents existed or they don't believe that the city and county of san francisco would ever promote racial discrimination. but we know from from real lived lives that that is a fact. and i think that we should further document it. and maybe some kind of appendix for people to get further information, because we want this document to be widely read and widely distributed and widely used. so i think with that kind of data, it can really help inform the process about what really happened. um i'm glad that you're talking about, you know, what was missing. i think that's always important. and mr. williams, you shouldn't feel like, um, you know, this

this is a done deal. this is a living document that will continue to live and we will all hopefully continue to encourage each other to contribute, because we can always, uh, obtain more and more information about what? about all of our lives. and one area that i think is a real hard and emotional spot in our history and our recent history is redevelopment and redevelop, just really ripped everybody's communities apart, particularly in the a1 and a2 areas. and we feel it today and we just heard about it in a recent move to get rid of a supermarket that provides essential needs to a community that doesn't have the means to go elsewhere. and that was redevelopment land. so we continue to be faced with what happened during redevelop. and i know that there is this discussion about how we address that, but it's been a very important part. i think, of the

african american community and communities that were particularly residing in the western addition that we should always continue to think about. and then finally, in terms of, i guess, outreach, uh, commissioner wright mentioned it because commissioner warren mentioned it. i'd like to see this document have a greater great, uh, outreach. and maybe one of the ways we can do that is through, uh, you know, having a discussion at the california preservation foundation conference to have a full blown discussion about this particular , um, african american historic context statement, because i think it should be something that the this whole state of california should be aware of. i also think that we can use this in the schools. we can use it. california ethnic studies is now part of the curriculum for high schools now. and this would be a great document to accompany. i think the information, because very little information when you talk about communities of color

or histories of color, you rarely see that at the high school level. you really see it at the college level. i mean, you really have to unless you're enrolled in the department of ethnic studies, really have access to that. so i really think that a document like this will have, uh, a wide and hopefully effective use and then, um, just in terms of, um, looking at the buildings where we read. so on, so many hundreds of pages about those buildings that were we saw very little that are and we need to do something in our commission to make sure that we continue to preserve the hours. is there a motion? oh yeah. uh, if i could, uh, mr. williams. thank you, madam president. i just wanted wanted to say something. one final comment and i wanted to thank you for your work on this,

because, um, before you and that chair, you remember the commission, but you reached out to me. you reached out to other people, and this was this was high on your priority list to get this done. and i just wanted to put on the official record our thanks to you personally for the work that you did in making this, because without your effort, i'm not sure we'd be here today. uh, i appreciate what the staff has done, but coming from this commission and your leadership, we owe a debt of gratitude to you. so i wanted to thank you. thank you. uh, commissioner vergara, understanding that it's a living document that will constantly be updated, i recommend that we adopt it second. second. very good commissioners on that motion to adopt the african american citywide historic context statement. commissioner vergara. yes. commissioner wright. yes. commissioner. foley i. commissioner. warren. yes. commissioner president. matsuda.

yes. so move. commissioners that motion passes unanimously. and let's just take a five minute break. how about that. okay. god afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco historic preservation commission. hearing for wednesday, february 21st, 2024. commissioners we left off under your regular calendar on item 12 for case number 2021, hyphen 005878c wp expanding housing choice informational presentation on. good afternoon, president matsuda, vice president nagasawa and commissioners. i'm lisa chen of department staff. um, if i could get the slides, please. thank you. um, so i'm excited to be here to provide an informational update on our housing element rezoning effort, expanding

housing choice. um, so today we'll be presenting the proposed zoning map that we submitted to the mayor's office. and i'll provide an overview of the forthcoming legislative amendments. today's presentation is similar to the one that we gave at planning commission on february february 1st, with more focus on historic preservation. we like to open our discussions by centering our work on the people we're working to expand housing choices for during the creation of the housing element and continuing into the rezoning , we've tried to uplift the voices of people who are impacted by our shortage of affordable housing, low and middle income residents, essential workers, family ages, young people, seniors, people with disabilities, and many, many others. the quotes you see here are from a series of oral history interviews that our summer interns conducted, and they highlight just how universal our affordable housing crisis has become. the interviews are posted on our youtube page and will be featured in an interactive website that will be released later this month. we all know,

and we all feel, that our housing challenges have gotten steadily worse in recent years in san francisco, we've seen home prices double over the past decade and triple over the past 20 years, meaning that a household would need an income of nearly 300,000 a year to buy a home. using the outer sunset as an example. in that neighborhood, over 40% of renters are rent burdened and are spending too much of their income on housing. meanwhile despite our growing investments in building affordable housing, we haven't been able to keep up with demand. the neighborhood has just 45 affordable housing units in over 41 44,100 applicants, which is over 90 applications for each affordable unit. the rezoning is just one of the central implementation actions of the housing element, which is adopted adopted unanimously by the planning commission, the board of supervisors and the mayor, and certified by the state. just one year ago, under the mayor's executive directive on housing

for all, the department was instructed to develop a zoning proposal for submittal to the mayor's office by january 2024 to ensure that we're on track to meet state housing and build the housing we need. we and other cities are working towards a mandate to build housing to meet our needs, with the goal of making housing more affordable across california, local jurisdictions have been directed to change our zoning to make room for 2.5 million housing units, including 1 million affordable units in san francisco. our share of this is 82,000 units, including roughly 46,000 affordable units. after accounting for development in our pipeline and expected growth. this leaves a gap of roughly 36,000 housing units that we are planning for our. the state also requires us to fundamentally reconsider where we build housing to create more inclusive and equitable neighborhoods. we have and will continue to plan for housing citywide, and expect to see tens of thousands of housing units built in the southern and

eastern neighborhoods closer to downtown. however, under federal and state laws on affirmatively furthering fair housing, san francisco needs to do more, and we need to create the same housing opportunities in the housing opportunity areas. pictured in blue. these areas represent over half of our residential land, but only 10% of new housing and affordable housing has been built here in the past two decades. these are areas that are designated by the state as having higher incomes, higher performing public schools, and lower environmental pollution, adding new homes here and specifically homes for low and middle income residents, will be transformational for the families and households who will benefit from living in these neighborhoods. it's also no accident that the map of housing opportunity areas bears a resemblance to the historic redlining map dating to the 1930s. this map was used to systematically deny investments in neighborhoods that were labeled hazardous, shown here in red, which also happened to be where many people of color lived and continued to live to this day. additional discriminated

lending practices also excluded people of color from obtaining mortgages in the more desirable areas in green and blue. both of these maps reflect a long lineage of zoning controls, financial practices, and other policies that have been used for explicit and implicit purposes of racial and economic discrimination. while we have made real progress in acknowledging and addressing racism and discrimination, the reality is that is that we are still living with the scars of these painful chapters in our history. san franciscans continue to experience disparity in their health, education, and income and quality of life depending on their race, income and the neighborhood where they live. it is this historical context that is driving the state mandates and our work to expand housing choices. we've been planning for a minimum of 36,000 housing units throughout the housing opportunity areas, primarily on commercial streets, major transit routes, and other large sites. most of this

housing will be mid-rise, or roughly 6 to 8 stories, with some areas in streets with higher heights. the city is also continuing to plan for additional housing off of the main streets. policymakers have adopted numerous policies to enable accessory dwelling units, fourplexes and six plexes and other so-called missing middle housing types throughout residential areas. acknowledging that we need to build housing in every corner of the city, there are numerous consequences if we are unable to adopt, adopt the rezoning or fail to comply with other key provisions of the housing element, we may become ineligible for hundreds of millions of dollars in state grants for transportation, affordable housing and other critical infrastructure. we could be exposed to fines and lawsuits as we have started to see in other cities. and finally , if our housing element is ultimately decertified, then we would be subject to builder's remedy, meaning that we would be forced to approve any proposed housing that meets basic safety standards, no matter their proposed height or scale or. we have spent the last year hosting

a range of outreach events and hearing from thousands of community members. we've had to be strategic given our timeline and the broad geography of the rezoning, but we've worked hard to implement a comprehensive and inclusive outreach process with larger events like open houses, online surveys, and community education workshops supplemented with more targeted events like focus groups, interviews and community conversations. we've publicized our events in the mayor's and supervisor newsletters on social media and in the newspaper. on muni bus ads, and on several email lists, including our department's list of neighborhood organizations. our team has been especially committed to ensuring that we reach the populations who experience the greatest degree of housing insecurity, because they often face barriers to participating in our processes. this includes renters, family as low and middle income residents, people of color, non-english speakers, seniors, and others. here are just some of the community groups that we've partnered with who have hosted focus groups and other events,

and also helped publicize our open houses and surveys and make them more inclusive, for example, by partnering on translation services and providing childcare for families . as notably, we've also held briefings and site visits with the sunset chinese cultural district, the castro lgbt cultural district, and co-hosted a convening with most inviting representatives of all the cultural districts. the zoning proposal that was submitted to the mayor and that you see here today is the culmination of not just the past year of community outreach, but also the multiyear housing element process. before that. and other local and regional planning efforts even before that, that have considered how to expand housing opportunities throughout the city, such as the department's housing affordability strategy. these slides show the progression of the proposal starting from the housing element er project scenario in april 2022. the two additional er examples in november 2022. the two initial zoning concept maps. from june 2023. the draft

zoning map in november 2023, and the zoning proposal you see today that will be refined throughout the adoption process. although the granular details of the map have changed and shifted in response to feedback, the overall approach has remained remarkably consistent. we've attempted to spread the growth equitably throughout the neighborhood, aids in the housing opportunity areas with a focus on the key commercial and transportation corridors, which generally have larger sites that are more likely to be developed into housing and that also tend to have better access to amenities like transit, retail and services. a crucial footnote on the map is that the height shown here are meant to be the final heights, inclusive of any bonus programs, such as the state density bonus in other words, we are working backwards from these heights and will set the base heights lower with the expectations that projects may use the state programs to get to these final heights. we're also creating an optional local program as a complement to the

state programs, which i'll describe later. in your case packet. we've listed some of the specific changes in this latest version of the map based on community feedback and additional analysis. these highlights include the addition of neighborhood commercial districts that are also part of the mayor and super cafe density control legislation, which is being heard at the board. we've also added additional heights in various locations such as balboa street and franklin street, notably, we have also brought heights down in several locations. um, specific specifically to sculpt heights off of the main commercial and transportation streets. this includes areas around lafayette park, russian hill, and upper market street. taken as a whole, the feedback we've heard over the past year has been very polarized. we've heard from many people who embrace the idea of adding height and density in these neighborhoods, and who push us to do more and add even higher heights. and we've heard from just as many people who worry that we are damaging the essential nature of some of our treasured neighborhoods. so we just want to note that we are

taking every comment, every letter, every survey response we receive seriously. we. worked diligently to find a balance between these disparate views and are advancing our proposal that we think can build upon and enhance the wonderful qualities in these neighborhoods. and while ensuring that we build the homes that we need for current and future generations. we have many examples from throughout san francisco of vibrant neighborhoods that have a mix of housing types, heights, and ages . as seen in these examples. and we also want to note that this is not a new idea, because many of these same neighborhoods proposed for rezoning also allowed more diverse housing types. in the past, including buildings that would not be possible to construct under today's zoning rules. here are some visualizations that we are developing with our consultant, aecom that provide an idea of what these neighborhoods could look like as new homes are added . we know from other area plans that even after we amend our zoning, change will happen incrementally and some some

sites may not be developed for quite some time, if ever at all. we will see a mix of old and new buildings at different scales, which is part of what makes cities like ours so dynamic. this image shows noriega street at 25th avenue showing a new building at 85ft. and here is geary boulevard at fourth avenue, showing a mix of 85 foot and 140 foot buildings. we have a few views of views of lombard street showing conditions before and after, so this first view is looking down. lombard street, showing a mix of older buildings interspersed with buildings at 85ft and 140ft. so here's the before and here's the after. here's a view from up the hill, looking north to the waterfront. so this is divisadero at broadway, showing buildings 140ft tall on lombard in the distance. so here's before and after. and here is the same

street, but a closer view at divisadero and filbert, showing 140ft in the distance. so we know it is inevitable that some buildings that are currently neighboring one and two story buildings will have taller buildings nearby. so we are also in parallel with this effort, working on objective design standards that can help lessen the impact of new buildings on neighboring properties by requiring features like step backs, massing requirements and articulation of the side facing facades. we've also been careful to plan around the topography and defining features of the city, and we believe the proposal that we are advancing will not substantially diminish the experience or sense of place in these neighborhoods. so for example, here's a view from the top of francisco park showing the public vista before and after the rezoning. so here's before here's after. showing 65

foot buildings, we did receive questions after our planning commission hearing about whether the view on the lawn would be impacted even further. but we've actually confirmed with our consultant that the view would be even less impacted at that elevation because the buildings in the foreground would block the view of most of the new buildings, and also because the slope does drop pretty steeply down to the water. but we will share those images from that elevation when we have those. and we're also going to be producing more studies like these at other streets and public spaces in the coming weeks. the final topic we want to discuss briefly is the structure and goals of the forthcoming legislation. our team is actively drafting the amendment and will be working with the mayor's office and city attorneys to refine the legislation for adoption early this year. this legislation will include changes to the planning code, height maps, zoning map and general plan. we're also creating a local zoning program as a flexible and fully opt in alternative to the state density bonus and other programs. here,

we've outlined some of the rationale behind this approach. although the state density bonus has been a powerful tool to enable housing production, it has also come with some unintended consequences due to the waivers and concessions that allow projects to sidestep some of our planning code standards. creating an optional local program will help create more predictability around urban form, including more certainty on building heights. since that is the most common waiver sought through the state programs. we'll also get more assurance on other outcomes by making sure that projects adhere to our code standards around topics like formula, retail, active ground uses, parking, and others. finally, the local program gives us an opportunity to create more diversity of affordable housing by allowing projects to choose among all of the inclusionary housing methods, including on site off site land dedication and a new rent controlled option that we're creating through the local program. currently, under the state density bonus and other state programs, projects must provide all or most of their affordable housing on site

. here is a simplified flowchart illustrating how we think the zoning structure will work. we're creating baseline zoning amendments and from there, projects will have different pathways to choose from in order to get to the heights on our map, they can choose from the state programs, including the state density bonus or they can choose our local program and either scenario, there will be multiple options for project review, which could include ministerial or streamlined approval. here are more specifics on what will be included in the base zoning at a baseline, all rezone properties will have density, decontrol, minimum densities, and a cap on maximum unit sizes. we'll be amending our heights using a two tiered structure. this includes a local program height, which is identical to what you see on the map, and a lower base height that can be layered with state programs. so, for example, on the sections of geary boulevard that are shown at 85ft would have a local program height of 85ft and a base height of 55ft, with the lower number applying to projects that use the state density bonus and other state programs. the baseline zoning

will also include the objective design standards that i've already mentioned, and it will also maintain and expand our rules on tenant protections and demolitions, including hearing requirements and rules to preserve residential flats. we're planning for rules to protect existing small businesses and incentivize community serving uses, and also working on policies to protect and reduce impacts on historic resources, which i'll detail later in the presentation. for projects that opt into the local program, they will need to abide by all objective planning code standards, including height and bulk, in order to incentivize projects to use the program. we're providing a menu of local waivers. this is a predetermined list of topics that is informed by the most common waivers and concessions currently sought by state density bonus projects, such as rear yard configuration, exposure, and usable open space, among other topics. the other carrot in our program that i already mentioned is the flexibility in meeting inclusionary housing requirements, so projects will be able to choose any compliance

method under section 415. so that's on site off site fee and land dedicated zone. and rates will be set equal to the to the citywide requirements. so that's 15% affordable units if you're building on site or 20% if you're paying the fee. the city is obligated to review these citywide requirements every three years. so if rates are increased citywide in the future , that would also apply to the rezone areas. we're also creating an option for small projects, 24 units and under to provide a 100% rent controlled building in lieu of providing affordable units. i. i just want to recognize that even though our inclusionary housing program is commendable and goes farther than many of our peer cities, it is not enough to produce the numbers of low income and middle income housing units that we need. so concurrent with the rezoning, the city has convened an affordable housing leadership council comprised of public, private and philanthropic partners who are working to identify and secure additional resources to bring us closer to our goals. we anticipate that projects will want to take advantage of ministerial and streamlined approval processes,

projects that seek ministerial review can use a number of state programs if they meet applicable criteria and projects that choose a local program will also have the added option to use a new housing sustainability district. projects that are ineligible for ministerial programs could also receive could still receive streamlined review, which could include first application review within 30 to 60 days of projects. acceptance and environmental review through our general plan evaluation process. some projects, however, will continue to require hearings, including those that propose to demolish rent controlled housing. we've been developing our policies on historic resources, working in close concert with our preservation staff, including the sf survey team, who have joined all of our public open houses and have prioritized their survey work in the areas proposed for rezoning. the proposal includes three categories of policies that would apply to historic resources, depending on their status. i want to read into the record that we have corrected.

some of the text in this table shows here in red, and we will issue the correction in the case packet as well. so the first category is landmarks and contributory buildings in historic districts that have been individually listed in the local, state and or national registers. these properties would not be eligible for demolition under the rezoning. the second category are designated noncontributory resources. in article ten and 11 historic districts. these properties would continue to require hpc hearings in order to be altered, and would not be eligible for ministerial review, meaning that meaning that they would undergo environmental review and would be subject to all applicable mitigation and monitoring actions. they would also need to meet objective code standards related to historic and cultural preservation, which we are working to add through the rezoning. this could include a number of mitigation measures from the housing element, eir, such as archeological discovery and investigation, public interpretation and tribal consultation. the third category

of policy is applied to resources that are determined eligible but not listed in the local, state or federal historic registers. essentially, our class a buildings that are not listed elsewhere, some of these projects may still be eligible for ministerial ministerial review if they meet the various program requirements, but they would still need to meet the objective code standards already described. the evolving landscape of state housing programs add further complexity to this work. as i'm sure you all appreciate. first, we want to assure the commission and the public that the state housing programs typically do not allow for demolition of listed landmarks. this is our policy intent and it's core to our local historic preservation programs. and we're working with the city attorney's office to develop these policies in accordance with state law. however resources that are simply eligible but not listed are more complicated. as noted, we will still be able to apply mitigation measures under sequa, and we are working to add additional objective code standards. but projects using

the state density bonus could potentially choose to use waivers or one of their concessions to avoid some planning code requirements. these conditions are not unique to the rezoning itself, and they also apply to historic resources in other areas of the city. so we have many staff here today in addition to the rezoning team, we have director hylis deborah dwyer, rich sucré, allison vanderslice and others who can speak to how the department is working to align our historic preservation and environmental review goals with these new state policies. in particular, we are in conversations with the board of supervisors on changes to our work program so that we can expedite the process to evaluate and designate landmarks both in the rezoned areas and citywide. we've also updated our online rezoning map. it actually went live this morning. um, so that the commission and members of the public can see where historic resources are in relation to the rezoning, as of right now, the website includes landmarks and historic districts that are listed at the local, state and or national level, but

we are continuing to explore additional preservation data that we can add to this map once it's been fully analyzed and vetted. as we close, i want to emphasize, oh, sorry. um, last one more slide before that. here are our next steps as we work towards adoption. so we do have a couple hearings on the calendar at the planning commission, including an informational hearing on february 29th on the affordable housing leadership council and an informational hearing on march 7th on the rezoning. we're also planning to schedule additional informational hearings as needed, both here at the hpc and at the planning commission, to delve deeper into various topics. so in closing, we want to emphasize that we understand that these are big and necessary changes that we are making to our city, and that can be very hard for people to hear about and think about. but we do know from our past two decades of zoning changes in places like hayes valley, dogpatch, soma mission, upper

market and elsewhere, that housing and historic preservation do not have to be mutually exclusive goals. we can maintain what we know and love about our neighborhoods. while we welcome new housing and new neighbors. and so with that, we want to thank our commission, this commission, the mayor's office, the board of supervisors, our city agency partners who have supported this work, and the thousands of people who have participated in our events and shared their thoughts with us. we look forward to working with all of you throughout the adoption process to sharpen the proposal even further. thank you. thank you indeed. uh, with that, we should have take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. can we go to the overhead? my name is robert mann and i'm on the board of directors of balboa terrace homeowners association. about

288 homes, 168 of them at least, are class a contributors that are intact. and, uh, this this view shows those 2 or 3 of the class a contributors on junipero serra and these properties in the current proposed zoning could become six story buildings as okay. and. uh, i just want to let the commission know that the association has worked very hard over the last 15 years to preserve the historic nature of the homes and the association. every single home goes through. architectural review. we've partnered with francis and other people on the commission to try and do that, and this proposed zoning change would obliterate this view along 600ft of junipero serra into this historic zone, including this, uh, entry area. thank you very much. thank you. good afternoon,

commissioners. my name is richard brandy, and i live in west portal, so i want to just limit my comments. actually to two. i sent a little memo about it. so i just have two points to make in looking at the zoning map. there's by my count, 195 properties just in the west portal area that are in historic districts that would be slated to go up, which would give an incentive, of course, to i don't know, buy and tear those down. but the other thing, which is really gotten my interest lately is the west portal avenue that's slated to go up very high. and yes, it is kind of a low, low, uh, low height limit now, but it's for blocks long and it's a thriving neighborhood serving the strip. it wasn't that way when i moved there in 1986, and

it is now. so i'd hate to lose particularly the first two blocks, which are even there. i think they're 26 foot now. they were down zoned years ago. those have a high concentration of small legacy businesses, family run. they and when you put in a big multi a mixed use project, they're going to go and they're not coming back. and that 18 month severance plan is ridiculous. and just i want to just leave you with four examples on market street where we have eight, i don't know, 8 or 10 story residential units. uh, they've been there for as long as ten years and all of them have only one, one of three different kind of use a gym, a bank or a walk in medical clinic . about half of those spaces are vacant after ten years. and i don't want to see that happen to west portal, particularly the first two blocks. that's why this plan is so broad. it makes

no distinction. that should be much more finely developed. this the third and fourth block on west portal avenue. you could have a lot more flexibility. we already have some high rises there, and it's not. but the key is the economic activity is much, much less the further away you get from the tunnel, it lessens. so the first two blocks are very important, the next two blocks less so. so i would hope that we could somehow reflect that because we're going to lose those businesses and they're not going to come back. and that's the whole point of living in a community or a neighborhood where you can walk to services, and you don't have to take transit or your car. thank you. thank you. hi hi, my name is monica morse, and my husband and i live in the historic ingleside terraces. we've lived there for the past 24 years. we raised our two daughters there. we shop,

eat and walk in the historic neighborhoods on the west side, west portal, saint francis woods, lakeside, balboa terraces, ocean avenue, ingleside terraces, as you all know, i hope is a historically significant neighborhood established in 1912, one of the historic garden residence parks that citizens and developers of san francisco had the foresight to create in order to keep families in the city. way back then, our historic, significant neighborhood includes the sundial, um, which is on the registry. we have over 50 houses built by joseph leonard. and as you just heard in the prior discussion, we have it is a historically significant area, um, around ocean avenue. it is considered one of the most intact historic garden residence communities in san francisco. this up zoning plan would install 65 to 85 foot wall apartment buildings across ocean avenue and junipero serra, eliminating the houses, as you saw in the in the image, uh, about balboa terraces,

eliminating those those those what i would say historically significant houses. they are on the eligible list despite what our planning department likes to tell us about. it might be protected. those don't seem to have any protections because they're not actually on the historical registry today. they're just eligible. so if you look at an image of this, there would be walls, 65 to 85 foot walls along ocean avenue and junipero serra cutting apart these historic neighborhoods. it would do the same, as you just heard in balboa terrace. lakeside. um, basically, this plan is irresponsible. it has spread like peanut butter. high rises across the city as mr. labounty said earlier, there is a false narrative that preservation is against a thriving san francisco. this the planning department, would have you believe that they need to do this, but they're numbers are even on their own website, inaccurate. there are already 74,000 of the 82,000 target. a target units approved in the pipeline. that's from their own website. that is different from the presentation you just heard.

spur has already proposed repurposing commercial to residential for tens of thousands of units. we should do that. there are existing areas where we have invested as a city in high rises. we should continue to do that, and some of those are close to my neighborhood, like parkmerced or along ocean avenue. and geneva. we should do that. san francisco has the highest residential vacancy rate, over 12% in the united states. rates have not. affordability has not improved. this idea that this is all about affordability is a false narrative. look at the economics we don't have a volume problem. we have an affordability problem. and just building more units will not solve that family . ses will continue to leave san francisco if they cannot live in homes and these communities that this plan will destroy are actually going to destroy communities of homes. so please ask the planning department to take another look and be more nuanced in their approach. thank you. thank you. waiting that

overhead. jonas. good afternoon, commissioners, i'm catherine petrin. i'm an architectural historian and advocate for historic resources through my volunteer work with the san francisco neighborhood theater foundation and sf heritage. but the views i share today are my own. like most san franciscans, i support. i strongly support, i strongly support the construction of affordable housing, strategic zoning, up zoning, strategic zoning can be beneficial, but the current proposal is not strategic nor thoughtful. it's unreasoned in the extreme and it creates an undue burden on designated historic resources. as an example. thank you. as an example, the roseland house, built in 1886, remains one of san francisco's best examples of

victorian residential architecture. open to the public. it is regularly visited by san franciscans by school kids, and by visitors from all around the world. it's a city landmark, and it was designated a national treasure in 2012. like many designated buildings across the city, it is also up zoned the draft up zoning plan. now um, the draft plan, uh, showed this building up zoned for 24 stories. the final version released last week or so, shows it as up zoned for 14 stories. how does that make sense? it just seems to me that historic sites national register sites, and article ten sites should be exempted in totality. i'm also a resident of lakeside, the lakeside neighborhood. it is a cohesive, inclusive neighborhood of 593, predominantly single family homes where 43% of all residences and 256 of the 590

residences will be rezoned from 28ft. to 85 or 65. this house, designed by harold stoner, is one of 109 contiguous parcels. it says sound housing. these residences along juniper boulevard will be up zoned to six stories on the west side of lakeside. another 147 contiguous parcels will be rezoned to eight stories because their rear yards abut 19th avenue, which is considered a transit corridor. these examples illustrate the need for revised alternate up zoning plan. i note director hylis quote in a recent chronicle article that the current map is not final. planning staff will continue to work with residents to fine tune it. i hope that is so, but it has gone from draft to final with no substantive changes

regarding sound housing and historic resources. i urge this commission to push back strongly. you have the power to do so. thank you very much. thank you. good afternoon everybody. my name is stan hayes and i'm the president of the telegraph hill dwellers. and i'm here today on behalf of more than 500 members for 70 years, fd has fought to protect and preserve the historic character of our city. this wonderful place that we all know and love. but today we're here to ask that you exclude from the proposed upzoning. that's before you. local landmarks and historic districts, as well as national, state and locally listed and eligible historic districts and resources. his article ten of the planning code charges you, the hpc with the protection enhancement, perpetuation and use of the city's historic resources under article ten.

then you're being asked to determine an evaluate the significance of the planning department's up zoning proposal on those historic resources in the department. is prepared an interactive figure showing their plan. showing their plan. however it's hard to visualize. as you can tell, it's hard to visualize the practical impacts on neighborhoods from a two dimensional map, a piece of paper looking at what it says doesn't really convey what really will be the effect of these. these up zonings on actual people and we're delighted to see that the department is providing more realistic representations, such as the 3d modeling. that's something that we have been doing for some time. you can see , well, maybe you can't, but if you look in the lower left hand corner up there, you'll see that the impression you get when looking at the effect of some of these up zonings is, is maybe not quite as positive as what you saw in the presentation from

staff. we'd urge the commission, we'd urge the staff to generate a additional modeling with vantage points that truly show the impact of these up zonings on people's actual neighborhood. and if you want to see what that looks like, you can go to a website, you can go to a website called news.net that's neighborhoods united, san francisco, and you nsfnet, go and take a look and you'll see a representation of dozens of different vantage points. take a look at those and compare those against what you saw today, and see what you think. and we also ask that you require the department to provide individualized information about the impacts of the proposed upzoning on specific historic properties for example, the proposal would upzone the haas-lilienthal house to 140ft. that's 14 stories and upzone the first unitarian church to 300ft, 30 stories. the department has available an interactive map.

which i very much appreciate. they're having put on onto the website, overlaying it on top of the zoning map that they have have. we're very pleased that they're doing this. um please don't complete your review of the upzoning proposal until the information that you're you're going to be provided has been made available to you, and you've had a chance to consider it, um, thank you. thank you. good afternoon. um president matsuda and members of the commission. i'm courtney kroeger, former member of the commission. um, i'm also a preservation planner, and i submitted a letter of comment. um, i'm here to get the specs

on. i'm here because i learned that the department's upzoning. i'm concerned that the department is up. zoning proposal will have a profoundly negative impact on historic and cultural resources, as well as legacy businesses. generally, significant height increases will put pressure on these resources, leading to demolition . even with protective policies in place. i have lots of opinions about the zoning map and how it applies to resources in the city, but i came here today to specifically ask the hpc to actively engage in the process of forming policy for historic resource uses with regard to the housing element. um, the staff report lays out basic protocols for different resource types, and they've changed since i was able to look at the staff report today. it was we saw that there are there have been some changes made and questions that should be asked include what is the process of a housing project? proposes demolition of a listed resource.

um, and for those resources where um they the projects must meet objective code standards. what will those standards be? um, how will those standards be developed? how will cumulative impacts to specific resource types as well as to historic districts and conservation areas be evaluated? and finally, with regard to legacy businesses, many are site specific. um, the department proposed relocation assistance, but that and that's important. but it's not not enough on its own. um, so i recommend that you form a committee and you work with the planning department and the city attorney's office and san francisco heritage, and you pound out these policies. there is precedent for doing this. in the past, and i think it's the best way to ensure protection for historic resources. um, and while i, i'm really pleased that the zoning map has historic resources on it now, they are

only designate resources. they are not eligible resources. and finally, um, i. have spoken at the at the city planning commission about this proposal and both bruce keen, a russian hill resident, and i, an aquatic park resident. um commented on the francisco park illustration. we didn't ask questions. we made comments about the fact that it was not representational. um, and i. i, i assert that it is not and that the, the views from that park are not represented accurately. and i would like to register that with the department. thanks for the opportunity to comment. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. woody labounty from san francisco heritage. um, i appreciate the. the sort of on the fly work that the planning

department is doing on this issue as it's starting to sort of seep into broader public consciousness and people are starting to ask pointed questions about what this means for their neighborhoods. i have a couple of questions, and i guess a couple of comments. um, one is i appreciate this new attempt to kind of create a buffer and a local zoning program, um, to anticipate current state laws and what it would allow and sort of work that buffer in the problem is, as we have seen, is the state decides at times if it doesn't like the way things are going in san francisco, it creates a new law. and so the problem with creating a zoning height at this point and hoping or sort of anticipating that the state won't suddenly change the rules again, um, we're baked in with that zoning height and i'm really just talking about historic resources at this point. not the broader issues. um, but i don't want to, like, have have a historic resource. and i already know there's one i heard about this morning that is

trying to take advantage of ab 2011, um, to demolish a historic resource, a listed historic resource for affordable housing. i want affordable housing too, but we need to like, bake in protections for the resource that we have spent decades creating programs and policies to protect it. and they can't just be overrun by a new bill that comes and is passed in one year. so i guess i'm trying to anticipate what the state is going to do. seems a little bit like a fool's errand. um, and so i would try to take that into account when putting these buffers in. uh, the other thing is we've worked very hard when racial and social equity, the presentation unfortunately, kind of sets it up like we're this will move racial and social social equity forward by allowing for more housing or more buildings. um, what it kind of misses is we have a good chance of losing some of the gains we've had with the cultural districts and with the legacy businesses. um, and i

appreciate the map. two that shows resource uses. i'm not sure if it has legacy businesses as as part of that or recognizes the cultural districts, but we put a lot of work into creating these cultural districts and expanding preservation outside of buildings and do does this new zoning map accurately and adequately take that into account? so those are sort of the questions, and i know it's all a work in process. i appreciate the effort that's being put in here to fine tune this. um, but this is the place where we talk about historic resources. and so those are the sort of the issues i would have you consider. thank you. thank you. hello and thank you for this opportunity. my comments are probably a little more simplistic than the others, and some you've heard already, but, uh, these are comments from my neighbor hood. my name is janet manfredini, and i'm representing the saint francis homes

association, an organization of 561 households in saint francis wood, which was listed on the national register of historic places as a historic district in june of 2022. our neighborhood, as well as this same commission, unanimously supported the historic district designation and. the upzoning of our neighborhood could easily result in impacts to historic resources that contribute to our designation. we object to the noted up zoning along junipero serra boulevard and portola drive. equally upsetting to us is the drastic up zoning along west portal and ocean avenues. these historic neighborhood commercial streets have generally low and small scale buildings that are home to many of our city's small businesses. some legacy up zoning will only force out many and will disrupt others that attempt to stay, and possibly result in buildings

extremely out of scale with the neighboring residential neighborhoods. further sections of west portal and ocean clearly qualify as historic, with ocean avenue as one example as having a full historic district evaluation already completed and these walkable history brick commercial corridors. are a deep part of our city's fabric. as you know, we limit formula retail in neighborhood commercial zones. what small business is going to be able to afford rent in the base of an eight story market rate building? please consider the up zoning impact of major thoroughfares such as taraval and 19th avenue, where eight full city blocks are up zoned, including vast swaths of existing historic residential housing and this potential impact affects well beyond our western borders. please have planning, reevaluate date and require public outreach on this

excessive program that will drag impact. historic buildings across our city. the residents of the west side of our city and beyond deserve to know we have the respect and support of our city officials relating to our ability to enjoy the neighborhood needs we selected as our home and respect their history, architecture, and the neighborhood ambiance that has made our city special. so thank you. thank you. i'm going to use the overhead. s.f. gov. can we go to the overhead please. great. thank you. um well thank you for this opportunity to comment. um a couple things. um, what i worry about most is that currently the zoning maps show the zoning overlay on top of the

resources that are already designated. they don't go around them. they overlay over them. what i think you're hearing from many of us in the room is we want the maps to clearly go around the historic resources that are already designated. so i'm going to give you some visual examples. this is the ingleside presbyterian church, a significant african american related and community resource on ocean avenue. it is one of the two anchors of the landmarks on ocean avenue. the other is the el rey theater. both of these would be up zoned to eight stories. everything around them would be up zoned to eight stories along ocean avenue. um, there is an identified historic district along ocean avenue that shane watson and i worked on very diligently. you have yet to ever hear that designation. we hope someday that you do, but it would be up zoned to eight

stories. some other examples from across the city. this is the octagon house at union and golf up zoned to six stories. the dutton, the talbert, dutton house at 2200 franklin up zoned to 14 stories. so saint brigid's church, um and the dutton talbot dutton house share a block which also includes the saint brigid school. this entire block is up zoned to either 24 or 14 stories. the entire block, like this is the roosevelt middle school, 14 stories along geary that would be double the height of that building. you see right there, right here, here. that's a designated. landmark. the bur house, 1772 vallejo, up zoned to eight stories. the richmond branch of the carnegie library increased density on this site. why? it's a public site. why would you increase the density on this site? similarly, the

sunset branch of the carnegie library is drawn around, probably because there's a school there also on that block. but why would we upzone these parcels that are city owned? can't we draw the maps around them? this is the grabhorn press building, which now houses the saint luke's school preschool, which has a play area right here. but right adjacent to it. and even right next to it, or even this building could be up zoned to 300ft, 300ft. so. so for those of you in the audience and for those of you out there on sf gov, if you're concerned about this, this is the website you can go to. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. good. afternoon, director hylis. uh, my name is tia lombardi. i'm a member of the board of san

francisco architectural heritage. but i'm speaking today , um, as a resident from district three, much of what i had prepared to say has been said and said much, much better. but i'd like to echo one in suggestion and echo it strongly that this commission dig deep into this plan, bring the values that you represent, point to it as an important overlay, and in the spirit of all that we've heard today, especially, you can see that there's this is the kind of thing that can really tear communities apart. so i hope you'll take that suggestion seriously. thank you very much. thank you. okay. last call for public comment. seeing none public comment is closed. and this informational matter is now before you commissioners. thank you commissioner foley. hi. thank you, president matsuda. i would just like to i'd like to say a couple things. i'd like to

say a bunch of things, actually. one, i really respect telegraph hill dwellers. and what you guys do. i respect the neighborhood groups. what you do. i respect heritage. um, i also respect the planning staff, the planning department, the work they're doing. and i think at the end of the day, we can all disagree on a lot of things, but i think we should actually disagree and have discourse respectfully. i don't think it makes any sense to attack someone who's trying to do a job and i just i just don't like it. and i just want to call it out. second, it's an information hearing. only we're not making a decision. we're not we're not supposed to make a decision. um, and the massing studies we showed or are shown are ugly. they're grim. every massing study i've ever seen is really ugly and grim. so i think it'd be interesting to see a building that's well designed contextually, um, versus just amassing study. but i think at the end of the day, i appreciate everybody's different opinion, but i think we need to respect the people that are doing the work. they're actually they have a they have a specific big challenge they're trying to do. they have directives, they're

trying to manage. um, i respect the planning staff, and we're trying to do i respect the neighborhood groups, and we should all just be a little bit more respectful. thank you. thank you, commissioner warren. um, there's a lot to say about this. i mean, uh, i, you know, i , i received all the emails and forwarded them to planning staff . um, they hopped on putting, you know, the historic resource on the map. so we could have this conversation about what what's being, you know, um, affected. um, and i think it's a good conversation to have. there's obviously people are, are, are getting wind of this even though it has been there and has been discussed all last year. i think a lot of people showed up for the castro theater, but i heard crickets at the housing element, so i i'm glad that there is more attention paid to this. um, and

more, uh, discussion. and i really appreciated the, um, the suggestion, um, of, uh, courtney kroger of having a, a coalition or a community involvement. and i think, um, uh, planner chen had mentioned that there is a group and maybe some other groups can be incorporated into that, um, such as our, uh, san francisco's architectural heritage or other entities that can have some say in that planning process. um there's a lot to clarify in this process, which i think, um, would help the public and help the planners clarify so that we know what to advocate for, what we can control, what we can't control. um, and i think the presentation that planner chen had laid out

is, is responding to a lot of the questions i forwarded to her and, and appreciate that response. um, i think we need to continue to have that conversation open. um, i you know, you know, i spent the last few days, um, just saying we're going to get it. here it comes. it's coming. the tidal wave is coming. let's let's make sure we prepare all these answers to these questions. so they did their best to do that in a short amount of time. um, i would i, you know, i'm hearing and want to kind of get feedback on in the next. but um, you know, a couple of weeks is, um, this, this, this plan, um, that you presented, um, just to clarify, there, i, i myself am a little confused, so i want to clarify it for myself, but also for the public. the 82,000 units from

are the amount of housing units required under the housing element to get state funding and there was in the presentation there was a number of 46,000. and then there was a number 36,000. can you please explain? 46,000 must be affordable housing. and then you set a shortfall of 36,000, which is the difference between 82 and 45. five or what is the. can you explain that a little bit. yes apologies for making everyone do mental math out loud. um, so i, uh we have a diagram that i think would be helpful that i'm happy to send to the commission because it's actually a little bit more nuanced than that, because we have the 82,000 odd unit rhna requirement, and that's market rate plus affordable. all. yes. it's all incomes. and then we add on top of that a 15% buffer. um, so that accounts for the fact that,

you know, even though we identify you know, here's the likely low income sites or the sites that satisfy our low income requirement, etc. we don't actually know what sites are going to develop at what what income level they're going to develop at. when we set the rezoning. and so that buffer allows for some of that buffer is above 80, above the 82,000 units. and then from that we subtract out our pipeline. but we have to make adjustments because we're trying to what is pipeline. so it's our development pipeline. so it's projects that are in various stages of approval. um currently. currently. yes. so that was i think some people referenced, you know, this 770 2000 units. um, so that that's everything. but then the state actually requires that we substantiate what we think can actually be built in the next eight years, which is the housing element cycle. and there was actually a fair amount of scrutiny, um, during the adoption process of the housing element, in order to adjust what that number that we can actually count is. so i think the number that we actually are able to count against the 82,000 units

was about 55,000 units. um, and so that's how you get the gap of 36,000 units. and then even within that 36,000 units, there is a gap. it's allocated among the income levels. so there's the above moderate, the moderate and the low income. so 36,000 is referring to affordable housing. it's the entire gap. and so i don't have the numbers in front of me. but i think the low income gap is around 20,000. and then the rest is allocated. or the 20,000 is low. and moderate, and then the rest is above moderate. okay. i look forward to this diagram that you're going to send us. it was at our open houses too. but it's okay. um, i also want to ask i see i see this map that you've shown us, um, and, and i'm just curious since what about this downtown area, what happened with that, that, you know, with the financial district and rezoning that area? yeah um, so

as as we kind of noted, the state's charge is really to affirmatively further fair housing, which is specifically looking at how we can add housing in the well resourced and the housing opportunity areas on the west and north and center parts of the city. um, and that does not mean that we are not planning for housing elsewhere. the reality is we've actually kind of done the work there already. so downtown already allows housing. there's been a lot of work to really try to, um, you know, encourage more conversion of, of office into housing, for example. um, the eastern neighborhoods plans allow a great amount of housing. so we actually expect that fully half or more of the housing over this housing element, period will happen outside of the rezoned areas that we're discussing. where are we in the number in the financial district in terms of going towards that. 82,000? joshua swiss-ski with planning staff. so the board

recently passed some legislation to encourage and facilitate conversions of office space. um as you might have been reading in the press, it's still a it's still a very expensive and complicated, um, thing to do. um, even though we've made the planning code not a barrier anymore. and so we don't necessarily expect a lot of conversions to happen in at least in the near terms. um, um, so it's a little bit of an open question how much, you know, the planning code is actually spurring and how much we could actually count towards, towards our, our zoned area contain how how many potential units does the rezoned area of downtown district. yeah. um well, just, uh, we don't have a solid number yet. i mean, theoretically, you could convert any office building, but, um, right. the city you're talking about a an area of downtown town. what's the expanse of that area? the expanse is all of downtown, actually, the legislation

applied to the entire city district, plus actually south of market. um, so there's a very large pool there, but how much of it actually, we could theoretically count, you know, how the state would allow us to count is very much a question that the city did issue an rfp or an rfi request for information from interested property owners and project sponsors who are interested in converting office buildings. now that the legislation has passed to see what the city could additionally do to help them along. and there was a pretty small pool of interested parties , i think about eight or 8 or 10, maybe totaling about 1000 units, of which maybe only a couple projects or maybe real. within that, we've had one conversion. i think the two, the warfield building and one other small building. so it's not a huge number that we would expect to be able to count. we will ultimately be when we submit to the state our rezoning plans will probably count some small amount in there, but it's not

going to materially change the magnitude of our 36,000 pod gap. um, okay. just based on the evidence that we'd be able to substantiate it, what can we do in terms of protecting historic resources from demolition? can we rezone around them as suggested or or can we, uh, and are we in the process of getting , uh, uh, the state office of historic preservation to put landmark parks and historic districts on the california register early on in the presentation, it sounded like, you know, landmarks and local like local landmarks and districts are protected. but that is not what i've been hearing. and so i just want to clarify that can we just clarify that? sure, commissioner, i can take the question. so the most

of the state programs protect the demolition of local, state and federal historic register to say that one more time, the most of the state housing programs have carve outs for the demolition of local, state and national historic buildings that are listed in those carve outs, meaning that they are not eligible if they're proposing for state bonus. correct? well no state density bonus or state housing and ministerial streamlining programs. okay. the state density, the state density bonus only protects buildings that are listed in the california register. so okay, so if a building is proposed, demolition of a listed california register building, then they are not allowed to use the state density bonus. no well, i mean, just to be clear, if you state density bonus and ministerial approval are two different things. one is an approval path. one allows you to do additional housing on a site and take advantage of, um, dense

bonus to add housing and get waivers and incentives and concessions. so if you are, let's take the haas-lilienthal house. if that was zoned, the zoned to taylor, i mean that's different because i think it's listed beyond just locally, but if it's just locally listed, you couldn't get that approved ministerial. you couldn't come in and approve. you couldn't approve what demolition or anything to that project or anything. okay so you couldn't come in and propose an alteration or a demolition of that property and get that approved? minister really? you could propose a state density bonus project on that site. but if it's not coupled with a ministerial approval, you would still have to approve a condition, a certificate of appropriateness on that site. it's listed. you couldn't come in tomorrow and just say, i'm going to take advantage of some additional height. that's on this site. add to it without getting your approval, uh, through a c of a for that project. and you've got that discretionary approval. so you so you can take action on that

site, much like you did take the sacramento street project out. that didn't add above, but it added adjacent to it and connected with that project. you approved a c of a in that in that project. and again you have discretion if it's altering the resource, if it's demoing the resource, you have discretion in that project to say yes or no, discretion on the detail of the facades. um, correct. and the height it. yeah. i mean, to the extent your discretion, you know, is under article ten, you usually look at the secretary standards. does it impact the resource is the question before you you still have that discretion under a state density bonus project. that's not that's an article that's in an article ten that's using an article ten. or is that the cited an article ten landmark building. that's because that building can't i mean that can't use, uh,

ministerial approval process. right. and i think maybe just to add to what, um, both the director and, uh, mr. segre have said is that i think what we're trying to make distinct but is, is challenging is that there are myriad of state laws that have been passed in the last several years, in particular, that treat different types of historic resources differently. so there's quite the patchwork there. and so depending on what law a project is, taking advantage of, the, the, the way that a resource is treated is different. so that's confusing number one. and then what we're trying to do and i think make distinct for commissioners and for the public, is that the local program that's proposed as part of this rezoning does a great deal to respect our local, national and state historic registered districts. the landmarks that are contained therein. and that, i think, was one of the slides that miss chen shared. and that is about the local program. um, however, that local program is local. and so if someone is using a project sponsor is using a state law, then it could be different than

what we're proposing for the rezone areas. so and some of those state laws are in place now today whether we rezone or not. um, they have impact, um, you know, resources as well. right. okay. so so, um, i mean, just getting back to what lisa said earlier too, we think the best protection is to list buildings that we believe are landmarks in article ten or in also potentially list them at the state with the state and federally. but list them right? just by virtue of their them being eligible. doesn't necessary protect them whether they're in areas where rezoning or whether they're in areas we've already rezoned over the last several decades. the best way to protect them, given current state law, is to list them. yep. right so where are we with with with um, um, the post office. we've still been waiting for guidance from the state historic preservation office. i reached out to them in mid january and they are still pending, basically providing guidance to local government on

how to address this issue. so i do know that the opi recently has been suffering from some staffing shortages due to some retirements of some very long time staff, so we're still waiting, is the short answer. but regardless to we should list them locally and we're talking to supervisors, as you know, and shifting some of our resources. so we're not just looking at what our current bes and deciding whether they're a's or c's, deciding what to list locally, because again, that's the best protection even under under the new state laws, in our own rules that buildings that we believe are landmarks are listed and they come to you for a c of a is what we think is the answer. but we're happy to talk again more to the preservation community and decision makers on that approach. but but currently that's what we think is the best approach, especially those that are vulnerable and those that are vulnerable are commercial only buildings, um, and single

family homes, multifamily buildings that, you know are are not listed still require a c. you you can't take advantage of state laws to demo a multifamily building. so those are our are not as vulnerable as kind of commercial only or single family homes. what would be helpful is, um, you know, there's sort of three different scenarios. i think there's the idea of building on a lot that has a historic resource. there's building next to a historic resource, and then building within the context of a historic district, um, that it would be good to outline the, the parameters of these different, um, uh, you know, scenarios that you were, um, explaining. um, just to be clear on what is we are able to control what we're

not able to control and where advocacy would help. um, i think a simple sort of layout of that would be very helpful so that the public can start to think about, okay, how do i get involved? how do i, uh, what can we do? um, and maybe it's a lot of advocacy at the state level as well. um, that people can focus on. um, and then locally, you know, pushing for getting landmarks. um, you know, nominated. um, so i want there to be a sense of ability to do something rather than feeling helpless. so any thing that could be outlined in that fashion would be very helpful. commissioner, i'd just like to add one other thing. um on this question of zoning, doing a rezoning around the parcels that have landmarks as opposed to, you know, our current proposed approach, which i think is consistent with how the city is generally zoned today, um, which is that the landmarks are sort

of an overlay over the existing zoning. is that the heights that lisa presented that we've been discussing? and she described this as a local program. um, these higher heights will are the heights that are going to be achievable through what we offer in this local program that we write the rules for. these are not, um, you know, so we can say in the local program, you know, whether it's the haas-lilienthal house or any other, you know, landmark that you're not eligible for these heights, if you're if you're a locally designated landmark or if you're some other classification, we write those rules. that's not a state thing. that's not a, you know, a state overriding our our authority to do that. so and that's what you have presented in this situation, the zoning. so there's no reason to think any of those landmarks that brigitte presented or any of those necessarily are any more in jeopardy through our local program than they are today, because we can say they're not, you know, they're not eligible for our local program. the rezoning also applies to the, um, uh, market rate buildings.

yeah, the local program. yeah projects that are, you know, have to meet the inclusionary requirement. yeah. and so, uh, this local program, um, local rezoning, local program, um, is not related to what the state can and cannot do in our jurisdiction, meaning that let's say we have a district that is about 35ft tall, and we established a rezoning at 40ft, um, can we do that? and have the state density bonus only go two feet, two stories above that? i don't think that's possible. right. because they are allotted any number of. well, i mean, so there'll be there's a base height limit. this local program will be above that. so the projects using the state density bonus would be basing their base project. their bonus project off of the base height limits, which is like you had mentioned, 55

and one, right? in a lot of cases, the base height limit will just be the existing height limit today, or it will be in some cases. you know, we're going to tweak it a little bit higher, but not dramatically so. and so the base, you know what uh, potential jeopardy those buildings are in today under state law is pretty much what it would be in the future. we're not necessarily increasing their jeopardy by increasing the local program, which is an alternative kind of parallel path to state density. bonus. and you're incentivizing them by saying we can go above that base and preserve historic resources at the same time. yeah, we could either through our objective design standards, set some clear parameters for what would be acceptable under the local program in terms of adding to those buildings or changes to those buildings. or we could just make certain classes of buildings and eligible for the local program. that's up for discussion in thank you, commissioner. right okay. it's my turn. um, i just want a list

too. and i encourage you to ask everything, but i just want to let you know that we must get out of here by 430. okay? it does not mean that we can't continue this item, though. i don't i don't plan on talking for 20 minutes, so, um, so i just want to say that i do appreciate, um, your attention to and consideration to every comment. as you mentioned. um, i think it's pretty clear here, um, that the staff reaction has been, um, you know, pretty it seems like you're on top of things in terms of taking, uh, listening to comments. you've already made a change with by adding an overlay, um, with in reaction to some comments. so, so i really appreciate that. um, and i appreciate, um, that you're working with the city wide survey team. i hope that

you continue to do that. but, um, i hope that, um, you continue to work with historic preservation on, um, staff on the housing and that, uh. that and i'm glad that commissioner nageswaran was saying that that she shared the comments with, with the preservation staff. right. because i was going to suggest that that happened. um i also want to just say that, um, historic preservation housing and climate policy are are not, um, you know, exclusive of one another. there's a lot of talk in, um, in the international historic preservation community, um, about the importance of embodied carbon and, and, uh, climate smart climate response. uh that also is smart for preservation. and, uh, the data

that's now being accumulated and analyzed is starting to show is showing, um, that we're not going to build our way out of climate change. um, they're not before the tipping point. um, at least. so there's a lot of embodied carbon in our historic buildings. i think we have to be smart about the way that we, um, raise zone. um, the office to residential is a perfect example. um and so i suggest if, um, i know you guys are on top of, of the comments, so suggest that if you haven't already, um, start to talk with, with, um, the divisions that are working on climate change policy and, uh, because i don't think that they're at all, um, that preservation, climate change or housing and affordable housing

are mutually exclusive. um, i'll leave it at that. thank you. any other comments from the commission? um, i just will make a few brief closing comments. i do appreciate miss kroger, your suggestion about some kind of way in which we could, uh, work together to create policy. and i suggest mr. sucré, that we meet more regularly to do that, maybe particularly with certain members on our commission. and miss chin, uh, miss chin, you really went out of your way. i think, to, um, really address issues like several big, big, major issues that were kind of thrown at you within the past 24 hours. so we appreciate that. and i appreciate commissioner foley's comments that the planning department staff is working especially hard, and i don't think they are ignoring historic preservation, but i think that we as the hpc, can

maybe play a more proactive role in in determining policy. so i thank miss kroger. i thank mr. verplank for your good comments and i, i thank, uh, director hylis, i think that we need to start start figuring out how we can address the commercial corridors and the single family homes. i think that's very important. and i appreciate all the comments here today. but i also want to realize that we have comments that are not here today in particular areas of our city and county of san francisco that often go unheard. and those are the area that usually get the worst treatment. when we talk about preservation, when we talk about anything. and so i want to make sure that what what we do moving forward really looks at the city as a whole. so thank you everyone for your time, for your comments. and we will adjourn 15 minutes earlier than expected.

>> (music).

>> (multiple voices.) >> landing at leidesdorff is as the new public school in downtown san francisco for people to come together for 0 lunch and weekends a new place to enjoy the architect and our culture. >> landing at leidesdorff one of several initiatives to the road map for the initiatives all about using your public space and network for now environments to 0 invite people adopted not just to the office but any time of the day. >> it shows there is excitement and energy and people wore looking forward to enjoying the space that people may want to end up in downtown. >> we've been operating in the financial district since 2016 with the treasury and coming up we had a small surge in business

in the leidesdorff and in about the financial district and a good time to grow here. >> as a small business the leidesdorff is making us being part of it as being part of in project. for me makes we want to be part of san francisco. >> so landing at leidesdorff for me represents hope for san francisco and the sense that this is become such a safe welcoming area. >> we local artists coming in and exercise boxes and live music but the hub of culture. >> the downtown partnerships has a studio in san francisco. they identified 6 locations throughout the downtown area we come together with new activity and spaces. >> is between us a place to tell our own story and history.

>> it was named after a captain one the black leaders of san francisco before that was called san francisco he was the first treasurer of the city and commercial street a cross street the hifblg original shoreline of san francisco was just a few feet behind where we're 12357b8z around opportunity to bring people to locations we have an opportunity to tell stories and for local businesses. >> >> (clapping). >> happy anniversary sfgov you have been providing access to

public meetings to keep folks connected and our original programming highlights the best of information and makes the city proudfranciscans. >> (bell tolling). >> wow. >> (clapping) welcome, everyone. here we are high on a hill. little morning fog, no rain are we lurking or not we're san franciscans. we're here to celebrate a beautiful man in our beautiful cable car cars what better day to do it in valentine's day can you bring our hearts all right. >> my name is