any comments you feel are important to the provide to the planning commission or board of supervisors, we'll add in this comment space here. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> thank you. steve, maybe you could come up. i want to -- i mean -- i haven't been following this for seven years. barely seven days mostly seven hours. i do want to congratulate you on a massive piece of work that is finally coming to some level of fruition. i did get a chance to read most of it in the last few days to get a feel for it. and it is really quite remarkable. i did want to ask about the changes that happened from, i think it was called the central corridor plan to the central soma plan. between, i guess it was 2013 then the end of 2016, there were some changes.

could you talk a little bit about theam them. >> years and -- talk about them. >> years and years passed. first of all, in your packet there is a supplemental information section in the end that goes through every single change made from the 2016 version to now. it's meant to be like a guide to everything that changed since the last version. we did a similar thing between 2013 and 2016. the back is -- if you want to want to reference stuff in the future about how things evolved from the plan. >> concept actually. >> conceptually. >> in 2013, the amount of bulk and height we wanted to see so the ceqa process could get going forward. ceqa doesn't cares much about the financial aspects of it. if we wait to figure that out,

we'd be five years behind. what is the right height? what is the right bulk, what is the amount of development and the mix and set the ceqa process in motion. then we spent most of the intervening years figuring out the details of affordable housing strategy, pdr strategy, working with all the city agencies to flush it so. as a full plan, it wasn't just an up-zoning. this town is easy to flip a switch and change the zones. it was about creating a complete neighborhood. since 2016 to now, it's been mostly working on the response, how much o of the e.i.r. and talking to the people. there are issues that rise and fall. but it's meant to be a 25-year plan. we hope the screpts i concepts e are able to maintain a few years

as well. >> i look at the images. amazing model from s.o.m. that show the development. it feels like it's barely height. it could be significantly higher and get more development and growth. i know this one woman who spoke passionately about her neighborhood. it doesn't appear that we'll be bulldozing anything soon or at all in this plan. but i see the development that is closer down towards the caltrans station on the south side of the freeway. you know, you talk about the shaping of the city as it sort of ramps up into the downtown area, and it still seems extremely low. we could get to parisian standards of eight or nine or 10 stories as well as seven or eight storeys. that was the one thing i

thought, that it could even with stand more development as opposed to holding back. >> so, would you like some input? >> sure. i'd love to hear the conversation. >> from five years ago, the urgency to facilitate more building and space was less widely held than today. it didn't exist until 2015. there has been a change in this process. we still feel like there is a substantial amount of development here and a big change relative to what the neighborhood has done today. there are a bunch of wide streets and not so tall buildings. our goal is to create and enhance the character. to create an urban feel. if they go up further than 85

feet, they setback substantially so there is still a feeling of openness and coziness while you have the development. the farm on 6-acres we have big sites. you don't have to get it vertically. you can maintain the feel of soma today. if we started this plan in 2018 versus 2011, you know, there may have been a different proposal. >> thank you. >> if you look -- i if you think of the plan in four quadrants, fourth street and the freeway. the northwest quadrant has low-scale residential buildings. there is very little capacity. we department want to create development pressure in that quadrant. the southeast quadrant is the

historic district. we'd like to take development pressure off. it's northeast and southwest where most of the development is happening. northeast being closer to downtown and southwest where most of the large development sites exist. it is concentrating there and places that are closer to transit, especially the caltrans station. >> thank you. >> commissioner -- >> thank you. i was very interested in the comments about the old mint. i too have worked on that project since mayor brown's task force. it's very heartening to the city has at long last, recognized that it ought to put some money, some san francisco money into this project. so that is a wonderful development. i don't think that $20 million

is enough. i think it should be closer to $50 million. i'm familiar with that building. i'm familiar with the costs that can be involved in that building. i also think i'm very familiar various potential for that building. but i must say, good work is not cheap. cheap work is not good. it's a remarkable building. it's a building that really -- san francisco could use for a variety of purposes. but $20 million is the same -- i won't say. $20 million is not enough. it's perhaps enough to assuage certain critics, but not enough to do the job. if i were filling in the blank on my own, mr. frye, i would

fill it in with $50 million. >> thank you. commissioner johnck. >> i want to congratulate you, steve, on this magnificent job here on zone plan. regarding cultural and historic preservation, i want to say, wow! ban consolidation of lots. i think that would be great. i mean, that -- because what i've been experiencing since i've been on this commission is we're -- the whole process of people -- developers coming in and consolidating lots then they propose demolition and we end up with trying to hang on to one last historic building and it becomes a facade or they're not providing enough setbacks and we fuss around with that. to have something forward and positive is great. i notice that under that -- the topic cultural preservation, it

says funding towards the old mint and i endorse the ideas. jim lazarus has been working on the project for years as well in the chamber. how we get additional money into that would be important in my book as well. but i notice that it says funding towards old mint and other historickeked historic bu. do we have examples of other buildings? >> so the other historic building is meant to be the tdr program. now there will be a differential in height for a lot of the buildings that make it meaningful to transfer development rights. >> and do we have some other buildings that we're thinking about helping out? >> so the sale of tdr goes

directly to the person selling the tdr. if you own a three-storey historic building, that parcel benefits directly. it's not funneling through the city. >> a lot of benefits we never see directly. that money is toward the public use. if someone builds affordable housing on site, we never see the money, but we get the public benefit. the tdr can sell and no wait for the benefit to accrue to the buildings. >> thank you. i want to file things since the mayor representative is here. you want to say anything more about the funding that is available for old mint through the city and california historical society? >> maybe you could speak to financing the project and how this $20 million would trick until over time. i imagine it could be bonded

against. you're not getting $20 million on day one. >> i'm happy to probe on the questions. i'm john lao on economic development. let me state that we would like to come back with a fuller presentation on our work around the mint restoration project. i've been talking with the preservation coordinator on how do that in the coming months. we want to gette get more inforn back from the technical studies. we look forward tie broader conversation -- to a broader conversation in the next few months. we're in the due diligence period conducting technical studies, answering questions that need to be explored towards developing a rehabilitation project here in a year's time.

one of those is financing. we're essentially building the capital stack as we go through this due diligence effort. we estimate -- we're using a project construction cost of $100 million at this time. one of the things we're doing is part of the assessment is to refine that figure. hopefully we're not wildly off on that. assuming now a hundred million, yes, it will be a blend of funds and we see a commitment from the central soma plan would be a significant commitment from the central soma plan would be a critical building first step in building that capital stack. using that as leverage we could see a significant state grant or support, rather. the landscape obviously on the federal front has changed dramatically in the last year and a half or so. that may change again an perhaps

there will be back in terms of the possible partner. and we know that we'll have to raise a significant component of that from private sources as well. that's why we're wrapping up a feasibility study. we're trying to figure out what it will address. a commitment early on from this city plan would be a big step in that direction. >> thank you. does that address your question? >> that's it. >> thank you. commissioner matsuda. >> thank you. i agree with commissioner johns about supporting a more higher, i guess larger restoration fund for the mint. i'm not as familiar as commissioner johns going to thee early 2000s but i remember when they wanted to make a museum. unfortunately that didn't

happen. mr. bueller's comment about the cultural comments concept is a good thing and good idea to put forward and put some serious thought into. commissioner behind an hyland aw have been on the assets committee for a while and we're looking for ways to figure out how to promote intangible assets. i think the level of funding that you quoted, a million dollars for soma fund. $15 million for capital needs. $20 million for cultural facilities, those are good but i'd like to recommend a higher amount. a million dollars doesn't really get you a lot. even one activity to support, i think a community event, in that area will easily take 40 to 50,000. and you have so many that will be taking place out there. for capital, 15 is barely going

to paint a house. i would recommend visiting these numbers and finding other resources to support that. >> commissioner pearlman. >> based on those two conversations, how do we as a commission add our voice for a specific amount or request in that blank spot? i mean what do we need to do today to address getting this information and our concerns and interests to the planning commission and board of supervisors? how do we have to word that? >> commissioners, if i may interject, for your notes, i have -- there is general support for a higher amount or larger amount for the old mint in particular to support the notion of a -- using old mint as a cultural commons and the general comment from commissioner matsuda in working how best to

preserve and promote intangible heritage, the 1 million, and $15 million set aside for the soma stabilization fund and upgrade to community facilities should be increased. >> i'm thinking that, you know, the plan has a number. it has a $20 million number. should we, as a commission, say not only do we think that's not enough, but we think it should be $50 million or $40 million? just something we can put a number on to make that suggestion. i should say we should ask for the $50 million. >> i would say at least $50 million. >> then just to clarify, is that just for the old mint? >> i think we're talking about the $50 million for the old mint. >> there was a specific number. >> i think once we come through the commons, we can come back to where we want to put this.

i'd like to getter in feedback on commissioner matsuda. commissioner black. >> yes, thank you. i want to say that i strongly support the increased fund approximating for the mint. i think the idea of the cultural center is wonderful for that building. i had a quick question. i'm happy to see that 33% of the low -- of the housing is going to be low and moderate. if i read this -- read the report correctly, it will be in soma? is that central soma? or a broader area? >> it's broader soma. this is at the desire of the supervisor of the community. most of it will be in central soma. to restrict over the years as the money comes in to that small geography, it would preclude it

from other sites a block or two away. >> thank you. >> commissioner hyland. >> i want to congratulate steve for leading the effort. i too, when i read this, i thought $20 million for the mint. that's a scratch. it's like a drip in the bucket. i would suggest that we, at a minimum, have this plan fund the stabilization and the conservation of the exterior envelope and possibly the seismic upgrade of the building so that the building itself is preserved. i think we have that number somewhere along the line. that's what the number should be. if it's oo millio it's $50 mill8 million, we can tie that too, based on all the efforts over the 25 years of analyzing the building. in the cultural preservation bucket of the $40 million, i

think there needs to be other funding and other identification of the intangible cultural assets. so pumping both of those, i thought the $40 million relative to the rest of the allocations here -- >> i think the $20 million is what they're anticipating from the tdr. this is tdr money. >> but the -- half of the $40 million is for it. >> right and $20 million is tdr going directly to parcels. >> got it. >> it's not allocated for anything else right now. >> so you say we believe this number should be higher both for mint and for other intangible cultural assets. that could be a recommendation. >> mr. wolfram, i appreciate your expertise. there are $40 million for cultural preservation for physical infrastructure.

$20 million the old mint. $20 million for the tdr program. and then there is $20 million for community facilities which could also house cultural facilities. that was a new nexus study and impact fee we developed. then there is the tbd bucket of which $25 million is allocated to go towards soma stabilization-type efforts and $15 million is proposed to go towards more capital for cultural facilities with the gardens in mind. the other money will go towards park maintenance and direct funding for the besse carmichael school. you know we're thinking about for that 70 million, so i mean, obviously advocate for what you think is right. but those are the buckets of money.

>> thank you. does that clarify? i think mr. frye, we'll go back to our letter that we're writing or motion we're making. you identified several matters or the blank space already. >> that the commission is in support -- well, i have a clarifying question. there is a more general comment of just providing additional financial support to the old mint in at least $50 million. but we could be more specific with commissioner hyland's comments. >> that seems more specific. and quantifiable than just our pulling a number out of the hat. >> i'm concerned there,

sometimes when projects are being defined. i worked on a project where things were stripped out of certain buckets. saying is not really a capital cost or seismic cost. i would like to have $50 million in there. and maybe state that we believe this makes a major contribution to that effort. i'd hate it to be like somebody does an estimate and that's only $21 million because we've moved the money around in our accounting. >> i was suggesting it be a specific number. but that specific number be relative to what the costs are. >> here is, on the mint building, to be general and crude, the building is not going to fall down. it's a stone building. it floats. because of the way it was designed in 1870. as i recall, the biggest seismic

issue are the chimneys. but the building itself, there is 12 feet of stonewall. >> i'm talking about the materials. >> the more pressing issue, as i recall, the structural part of it is the stone. which is like, you know, flaking and falling apart. there are other things. but -- so i'd be reluctant to use the word "seismic" for the reasons you stated. >> use words "rehabilitation." the rehabilitation of the building so we're not saying this is funding a new program in the building. we're funding the rehabilitation which includes structural and life safety upgrades and accessibility and other things. >> $50 million. we need $50 million. >> towards the rehabilitation that should be on the

rehabilitation. >> would you like me to reread that? the commission is in support of increasing the contribution to the old mint to at least $50 million as a major contribution to the effort to rehabilitate the struck tour such as stabilization, life safety upgrades and stabilization of the envelope. the second recommendation i have so far is to pursue increased funding for cultural it, specifically, intangible cultural heritage within the central soma plan such as increased funding to the $1 million for the stabilization fund, or increases to the $15 million cultural facilities fund.

>> or, i'm open to making it more general with a specific amount and talking about cultural heritage, not only tangible, but intangible. including the intangible. because, i mean this is a start of pay new program. this is a great opportunity for us to include from the on-set things that we want to preserve that are intangible assets. whatever we can to get that in from the beginning would be great. >> okay. so then that would be support for increased funding to -- you want it to include our list stabilization fund or cultural facilities fund? or increased funding to support cultural, tangible -- >> an increase. >> okay. >> yeah. you could use that word "at

least" again. >> is there a specific number? >> commissioners? i mean, you shouldn't ask me, because i would say a lot. >> i guess the question is the societal of these numbers -- is the societal what we have to tot we have to work with? >> how much can we ask for? >> the amount that we have is going to be cast. we're squeezing developments substantially. so it's going to come out of something else, right? i'm not putting it on you to recommend what comes off the table. but there is a recognition that every ask and equal, something else has to come off. you have to advocate for what you're advocates for. some of the stabilization fund has been a million dollars. i didn't sit on the body.

i listened to what people said. there was a general sense that it's a good amount of money to meet the program needs. if you have $10 million a year, if it's 2 million or 1 million, it's every year, it's 25 million over the year. the funding source of the district, it's going to be -- that's a 99 million-dollar tax. i don't have a feel for the right amount. if you think it needs to be more, just advocate for it. to fulfill the ask, something has to come off the table. >> right. we're looking at our little fund. >> we're advocating for our fund. >> we're talking about new people coming into a community. the new residents need to recognize what existing there and what has existed and to continue that spirit or continue

that culture. and the neighborhood. so i think it's a great time to ask. -- great time to ask for triple! >> i just want to -- when i was talking about the cultural, part of it is the arts and industrial aspect. we shouldn't forget the $180 million in reserving that aspect of the community. you need to subsidize the uses. if there are housing, we could have other benefits. >> could you explain that more on how the 180 million is used. >> that's the subsidy if necessary. if we allow housing and housing was paying a bunch more, we could benefit through that from our impact fees and housing etc. if you're a getting two or three bucks a square foot, you could

get five or six or seven from office utes, etc., you're asking the developer to actively subsidize that space. you have to think of the full picture of what is feasible. when we develop our economic feasibility, we get to recognize all the subsidies, affordable housing is a subsidy. noodz to the fees they pay. that's an estimate of the amount of sub did i that is necessary to create the location. by requiring the space be for pdr uses, we're basically saying we're going to have a bunch more space for arts in this neighborhood in the future. that's the kind of folks that are perfect for this low case. we've been working with the arts commission on returning this to being ao an arts neighborhood of things that have percolated out of the soma testimony over systf change. now to acquire industrial space, we'll have a lower-cost in this

neighborhood that will be populated with interesting cultural stuff. one thing i heard from one community member is being flexible in the industrial space of allowing it to be for the community nonprofit space. that is another way to get at the community because i 100 percent agree with commissioner math suematsuda. make sure the people there continue to thrive. >> maybe in addition to talking about the arts and pdr section. talk more about the intangible cultural assets. >> yes. >> so to clarify that the 1 $180 million includes the arts and tangible and intangible cultural heritage? >> yes. but i think we want to talk about programming. none of that 180 is for physical

space. so there is the tangible that i think as a city we've been good at over the years of figuring out programs for that. we're excited about learning mechanisms and we have a unique opportunity to fund the groups and programs over time. the question is how much. we've kind of identified $25 million. if the ask is for more, that's fine, i'm excited that we have the opportunity to do this. because most plans have not had this tool at all. >> thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> steve, would you -- this is an aside, would you tell us your staff that worked on this? we talk about you and congratulate you. >> shelly has been my partner on all the cultural preservation as well special workin -- especialy working with the filipino community. and josh has worked with me. there is my colleague lisa chen

who works on the economic feasibility. lisa fischer who does the sustainability. art is the architectural design person. all the different agencies that come and sit. and all the ceqa team that discusses policy. vickie over here, our city attorney working on all these years and trying to keep news line a little bit. it's quite a menagerie of characters. >> i didn't want you to get a big head. i wanted to hear of all the people that worked on this. do we have a resolution? >> you mean the number? i would like to propose the same amount. >> 50? >> yes. >> i have that as reading then increase to at least $50 million support for programming and

promotion of intangible/tangible cultural he heritage. >> yes. >> i think, commissioners, one other thing i'd like to point out or mention, while it's good to talk about money, this is the first department ha-led area pln that has fully implemented cultural heritage into the policies. it may be helpful for the decision-makers to hear support of that as well. >> we'd like to state our support of that. can. and all the measures in here that are focused on preservation, i think commissioner johnck identified >> consolidation.daition. >> i give that extra tars. thank you. >> thank you. >> i think, personally, identify a lying to congratulate the

planning -- i'd like to congratulate the planning department about creating a better neighborhood and the complete streets and parks and the transit. all those things are important. the recognition of the alleys and the role they have in the neighborhood now and reinforcement of the character. tosit's great work that has been done. i think we have a motion that's been amended that we could -- was there a motion to adopt? >> i move to adopt our comments. thand and the resolutions. >> second. >> thank you. >> commissionercommissioners tha motion seconded to adopt recommendations to the planning commission and the board of supervisors as amended to

include an increase of the contributions for rehabilitation of the old mint building to $50 million and to increase the funding for cultural heritage. >> at least. >> to at least $50 million and increase the funding for cultural heritage tangible and intangible cultural efforts to at least $50 million. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner johnck. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> commissioner pearlman. >> yes. >> and commissioner wolfram. >> yes. >> that pooses 7-0.

. >> commissioners, before the start, i did want to take a moment to just recognize our surveys and designation team that has, i would say, lifted a fairly heavy weight in

preparing the designation reports in front of you. this is also the first area plan where we're bringing all of the designations forward with the plan. as you know from eastern neighborhood and market octavia, often these neighborhoods trail behind. we started this with the transit center plan, and it worked very well in illustrating sort of balance between ballot and preservation, and desiree smith, shannon ferguson, francis mcmillan have all done a tremendous job with the designation materials that are in front of you as well as their outreach efforts working with steve and his team at the workshops -- the central soma workshops and really sort of explaining what the benefits are to landmark designation and article 11 designation. also did want to recognize jonathan lammers was the original author of the central

soma historical context statement, by you adopted several years ago, as with as susan parks worked with him on the central soma survey, which we'll talk about that in zbrust a minute. so that concludes my remarks, and i'll hand it over to desiree. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. desiree smith. planning department staff. could i please have the overhead. the recommendations before you today are the article 10 and article 11 recommendations identified through the octavia market and central soma recommendations. they include the article 10 landmark designation of the new pullman hotel, the pile drivers bridge and structural ironworkers local number 77 union haul, the hotel utah, and the clyde and crooks warehouse historical district. also before you is a change in article 11 designation of 55

fifth street, the hotel lankershim, an unrated building contributing to a category four building. [ inaudible ] -- 898 mission street, the pick wick hotel of the each of the items were added to landmark designation work program on august 17, 2016. additional article 10 and article 11 adoption for central soma plan will be considered as future hpc hearings. i've knotted today's items were identified through historic resources surveyed conducted in soma over the past few years. post 1906 earthquake and fire reconstruction and architectural design.

[ inaudible ] -- and protect soma's cultural resources. these policies include supporting the preservation -- [ inaudible ] -- protecting significant and contributory significant cultural heritage properties, and supporting preservation of buildings and features that reflected industrial and arts legacy of the neighborhood. throughout the development of the central soma survey and historic context statement, multiple public outreach efforts were conducted beginning with the launch of the survey webpage in 2017. this was followed by presentations and meeting with the central soma advisory group during 2014 and 2015. most recently a public mailing notifying property owners of today's initiation hearing was sent out on march 1st and 5th. through notification staff has provided technical assistance to property owners and tenants

including mills act and use of the california historic building code and responsibilities and designations such as a permit to alter and certificate of appropriateness requirements as well as how the proposed amendments will help the policies outlined in the central soma report. we have determined that the subject properties meet the requirements for article ten eligibility. first of the three properties nominated for individual landmark status is a former newt pullman hotel. [ inaudible ] >> -- and fire reconstruction period. the hotel primarily housed seasonal railroad and african american railroad workers

including pullmans, porters and mads. they established the first all black union in the country, contributed to the development of the african american middle class and made important contributions to the krifg rights movement. this is the only property known in san francisco that has strong associations with porters and pullmans and maids. [ inaudible ] >> designation of the former new pullman hotel also meets the hpc's designations of under represented property type -- [ inaudible ] -- specifically african american history. next landmark designation is for the former pile drivers bridge and structural ironworke

ironworkers local 77 union hall. [ inaudible ] >> constructed shortly after the 1906 earthquake and fire, the building is assist associated with the post disaster reconstruction era. the union hall retains the -- [ inaudible ] -- until the unions moved to oakland in 1973. the third and final individual landmark designation that we have before you today is the hotel use [ inaudible ] located at 500504 fourth street. along with the new pullman hotel, hotel utah is a remaining kpamp will of the residential motels built in the south market neighborhoods in the late 1870's.

the -- [ inaudible ] -- and continued through the post 1906 earthquake and fire reconstruction service. [ inaudible ] during which most of the building stock including nearly all of the residential hotels was razed. with its ornate -- [ inaudible ] -- architecture, commonly employed in the design of residential hotel buildings constructed during the period. the period of significance is 1908 to 1947, reflecting the year the building was completed through the end of world war ii when employment looping the waterfront and the neighborhood industries declined and the need for housing in the south of market area diminished. hyde and crooks warehouse district is reflective of 19 century in the south of market

[ inaudible ] >> the district's mix of industrial and warehouse buildings interspersed with residential structures is typical of the land use pattern do s developed in the -- [ inaudible ] -- and return the south of market function as industrial center of the city following the earthquake and fire. the hyde and crooks warehouse historic district is one of the last remaining small scale frame and masonry buildings in san francisco following the earthquake and fire. we have copies of the ordinance that was not originally included in your packet, and so we -- the secretary had passed those out and a copy of that ordinance also on the -- the table for anyone who's interested. those are all of our article tens that we have for today. now i'd like to review case

reports for the article ten pr

address pipeline projects 134i9134i submitted during the development of the central soma plan. [ inaudible ]

2228-248 townsend street, 457 bryant street and 500-504 fourth street meets the required eligibility requirements and designation is warranted. staff recommends designation of all three property. staff further believes the hide crooks warehouse historic district -- [ inaudible ] -- staff recommends the hpc initiate designation of landmark [ inaudible ]. in addition, the department believes that 55 fifth street is eligible -- [ inaudible ] -- and the property with 67 through 99 fifth street and 898 mission street relate to the established russ tore cal context and architectural -- [ inaudible ] -- and we recommend that the boundary be changed of the district to include those properties are. staff recommends hpc initiate the change in designation at 55 fifth street and the change in the boundary of the kearny

mason market -- [ inaudible ] >> that concludes my presentation as well as i am here to answer any questions. >> thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> yeah, i do have a quick question. on the three individual landmark designations, how do the -- the owners feel about it? did you work with them? >> owners were notified, i believe -- i don't know if we've received any feedback, you know, supportive or -- for otherwise -- >> there may be -- there may be owners, property owners in the audience that may want to speak. >> okay. >> but we did provide notification and offered to have meetings with all of the owners. we did talk to some property owners at the workshops, the central soma workshops. i would say of the property owners that took us up on the offer to work together, it has

been like, 645 harrison, the grand oriental complex, and i believe one other that has worked closely with us. all the others, it's been more of a -- sort of intermediate communication over the -- >> i was just curious about -- >> over the course of the plan. >> i was just curious about these three in particular, 'cause i knew there were issues with the new era hal along the way, and i didn't hear anything if the owners were supportive or not supportive. >> i would say these three, we've reached out to them on multiple occasions and haven't received any feedback really either way. >> thank you. >> thank you. at this time we'll take public comment on items 10 a, b, c, d, e, and f. if any members of the public wish to speak, please come forward. you'll have three minutes, and you'll hear a warning buzzer 30 seconds before your time is up.

>> thank you so much for hearing me. my family owns three of the plots in the cliyde crooks warehouse area. the first time we received notification was monday, when this meeting was occurring, so we haven't really been apprised of the situation in the area. we do have two buildings that are there. one of them is absolutely a historical building. 360 rich street, parcel number 040 is a building that was built in 1920. it was the san francisco pie company, and we absolutely agree it's a historical building. however, we also own the building next door, which is parcel number 044. it is a building that was built in 1950. it is a one-story cement block building with nothing interesting about it or nothing significant about it. and so as we're just learning

about this process, we have questions about that building being included. >> can you tell us, what was the address again for the second one? >> the second one has many addresses because many other buildings were built on the block, it is currently called 372. the tax records call it 336. it's also called 340. >> 372 rich? yes. all right. thank you. >> thank you. does any other members of the public wish to comment on this item? if so, please come forward. yes. please come to the microphone. >> my name is kathrin beckwith, and i learned about this when a friend called me yesterday. i've not had any notice of this. i am wondering if this means that you can't change your building at all, that you can't build up within the height limit that exists now, even though you might be preserving the ground floor.

does anyone know? >> well, we'll address that -- we can address that when we get back to the commission, but we can't really answer questions directly at public comment time. we can take up your comment... >> i -- >> we can respond to it shortly, but we can't have a dialogue right now. >> fine. i'll move on. i've had this building a long time. i watched where south of market grew. i watched where no major parks were put in. i've watched where burton designated park on the waterfront made into a rehabilitation place when there were historic buildings right behind it, maybe even abandoned that needed to be saved, and yet, there's no park there where everybody would enjoy it right by the water. i don't want this block to be used as a light corridor for others that might be able to build up, and not us. i'm confused when they say we want high-rises near

transportation, and yes, this isn't -- i'm confused that planning takes away or might take away the only kind of group recreation where you can reserve a tennis court outdoors if you don't have the luxury of going by a public tennis court and waiting for a court. i wish that the quality of life were being addressed. i think it's too late for most of south market. it looks like orange county, and i just don't want our waterfront to look like miami beach, and i don't want us to become sao paulo. so i don't mind historic preservation, just a, i should have been notified; and b, if you can build within an historic looking building that follows it, i should think that would be okay. the building that the pullman hotel was just put in metal windows within the last year or

two have nothing to do with the historic. the midrise on poundson that faces the lusk street was supposed to put a brick facade -- i think over christmas they got -- agreed that they would put a brick facade over their parking lot. and somehow, a christmas eve meeting, we're looking at brick and cement. it couldn't be any more costly for them than this would be for us. thank you. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? if so, please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. mr. frye? >> commissioners, tim frye, department staff, i just wanted to remind the commission and maybe for the benefit of the public that all designated properties under the plan will be able to sell their air rights through the tdr program,

but we're happy to reach out to the property owners that are here and have a larger discussion with them about the fen fits of landmark designation. >> okay. and i guess i would like to maybe also point out for the bep fit of the public that the zoning for this district is not being changed, so there is -- i mean, for noncontributing parcels, for example, it's still possible to develop them as if they were not a historic district. and certainly the south end, there's been a lot of development in that district. it hasn't prevented development from happening in that stream. so commissioners, comments. commissioner pearlman? >> the reason i had asked my question before about whether people were noticed or -- notified or not, and fortunately, commissioner johnck had my material, and my material, found my note, what

outreach was done specifically to these property owners? you know, i'm really concerned about this -- i'm sorry, i can't remember your name, but you know, this person's concern that she just heard about this, and the other person who also said that she just heard about this, and that we're looking at, you know, a new historic district, which 'em ae particularly interested in only because i had my office at 25 lusk for many years. so i am familiar with the area, and it is remarkable that this little enclave has managed to survive all the development that's happened around there. when i was there, i was watching a lot of these buildings getting built and watching it getting denser and denser around there. i have some concerns about buildings that are being landmarked that, you know, the owner is not participating in. it feels -- i know that we can do that, but it doesn't feel very good because of, you know,

any concerns they may have. >> i'm sorry, are you talking about the three individual parcels or the district, because in a district -- >> no, no, i understand. and i'm not speaking specifically to the district, i'm speaking specifically to these three -- this is a place where, you know, it -- these don't seem that significant to me that they stand out so much that they should be landmarked. they are historic resources. they are already historic resources, so levels of protection for development would be there. you know, if we look at liberty hill district, we get lots of projects coming in. and any one of them are beautiful. they're all beautiful homes, and they all contribute, but not any one of them specifically might rise to the level of being a landmark. and these are the cases where, you know, i know i always harp on this, that if we had an

intermediate step to say what happened at the new pullman hotel, that fact is interesting. i mean, that's a very interesting thing, and we should know about it. we won't know about it because we're never going to put a plaque there that says this, or maybe we will if it becomes a landmark, that i just have some concerns about elevating, you know, three buildings that are okay and they're -- you know, they're kind of interesting. maybe the new pullman hotel rises above the other two, but the fact that, you know, an edwardian buildings in south market -- there's certainly a lot of edwardian buildings in the city, and a lot of them are used for housing. it doesn't seem that it's that much of an elevation to a landmark status, and again, this is my opinion about that. i think the district is great, and i think the expansion of the conservation district also makes a lot of sense. i always wondered why those two

buildings were sort of hanging out and in between everything, but -- but certainly have the character that make the district. so i certainly support all of that. thanks. >> thank you. commissioner johnck? >> well, i'm concerned -- i'm not comfortable with approving the fact that the owners didn't know about this. i'm concerned about that. i don't know. i just -- it makes me uncomfortable. i don't know how to handle it within what we're talking about. i know that that's happened before in our designation -- well, when i say happened before, that we don't always have, what -- landowner approval. i know that. i know that. >> the owners of the three landmark properties -- >> i guess that's surprising to me. >> i'd like to clarify. the owners of the three landmark properties have been notified, and these properties have been identified in the central soma plan,