bit more verbal in our description. you so have the building, and the building probably really in and of itself could not tell the story, so i suggest we have some kind of large interpretive panel, because the bayview, back in 2002 is a lot different from the bayview today in 2018, and future generations of african americans whoa continue to make the bayview their home will not understand the true significance of dr. coleman. so i would suggest that we, in this case and in other cases where we look to a person who can really -- was the real reason for landmarking, that we have some kind of interpretive panel or something there for people to clearly and readily see to understand the whole story. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. thank you all for bringing this before us. i agree with commissioner

hyland and certainly commissioner matsuda about this. but i also think that the building is, you know, quite interesting and, picture from february 28, 1960, i mean, that must have been one radical moment. you know, this building must have been extremely radical in that time frame to be built in the community. so i think that there's that aspect of this, as well. i also want to just point out for those of us who work in the -- you know, as architects in the community now, that this project was brought for permits in may 1959. it was approved in august of 1959, and it was opened on february 28, 1960, so that was a pretty remarkable feat in and of itself, relative to our 2018 point of view. i do think that it's a very, very worthy and moving story,

and absolutely, it reminds me of marcus books with the richardsons, and how they had, you know, cemented the community around the till more, and the difference there was they were doing it in a victorian house where dr. coleman was doing it in a building that he had created -- and he owned and created, and so i think that, you know, is rail ian important part of the story, as well. so excellent. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner black? >> commissioner black: yes. like my fellow commissioners, i actually think this building is quite something, and i'm very taken by it. the wraparound panels, the part panels, especially at the entrance, bringing the inside and outside blurring, inside outside which is so much a statement of the time, also those hanging light fixtures, how on earth those have

survived for 58 years is amazing, but it's wonderful that they're still there, and very unusual and iconic of the time. but most importantly is the man himself, an incredibly dedicated man of medicine and law who literally spent his entire life working hard for the community. so i was unaware of the story, as well. i'm so glad i learned it. i think commissioner matsuda's idea about an interpretive panel that -- that expresses the importance beyond just the name on the building and the building itself is an excellent idea, so i would encourage that, as well. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner johnck? >> commissioner johnck: well, well, i think my fellow commissioners have pretty much nailed it, but i did want to make a comment about commissioner matsuda's idea,

and i think that you pegged the year 20000 or -- 2000 or 2002, and i think that the plaque should focus or go back and start with the 1950's, which is sort of a ways into dr. coleman's career, when i think it began, for present purposes for us to see fruition because it's so important in telling the history of san francisco to show how members of various community organizations were able to see a problem and do something to solve it. it's not only important for that reason, but it's important because who knows, some little kid may see that, and that would be the impetus for doing

a similar thing but in another generation. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner johnck? >> commissioner johnck: this is particularly nostalgic for me because i remember howard thurman speaking at my church, reverend thurman, and often speaking of dr. coleman and bringing him in to talk to us in the 60's and early 70's. so i -- i want to thank the community for bringing this recommendation to our attention. so important, and i'd like to thank miss coleman for bringing up this very critical mission of which this board is on at this stage in its life. i think as you know, it used to be named the landmark board, and we were very much into the building and in contrast to our

previous discussion on 120 stockton. but here we are, very important piece of our expanded mission to think about the people and the relationship to the landscape and the values that we hold dear, and here, again, the relationship between the medical practice and the church and religious communities and value. just -- the relationship is just so, so key. so i'm so glad we're going to recommend initiation of landmark designation. so, so important to do this, and i will move -- i move -- >> president wolfram: that sounds like a motion. >> i thought you were never going to get around it. >> commissioner johnck: i'm getting so nostalgic of dr. coleman and reverend thurman. >> i second. >> i second. >> commissioner matsuda: can we include in the motion of the inclusion of some type of

interpretive plaque as commissi commissioner johns said i would say from the time dr. coleman purchased the property until his passing. >> i think we might make a recommendation that we would like to -- >> i do have some information from jajvon mohamed that they're working on a mural to go up on the front stairway. [ inaudible ] >> that would be on the interior, but we also do have our plaque program that we can also look at. >> we can also -- >> connect them. >> not only that, but the legacy business registry, i would like to -- >> president wolfram: i wonder if -- i think maybe we keep the nomination -- the designation kind of clean. we don't want anything to hold it up, so let's just keep that as a clean designation, but i think we can encourage staff to work with others on the interpretive program. >> it sounds like they're doing it. >> president wolfram: it

sounds like it's being done already. >> clerk: commissioners, there is a motion that's been seconded to initiate landmark designation and for consideration of an interpretive plaque. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moves, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0 [applause]. >> clerk: commissioners, that'll place us on items d-a, b, -- 9-a, b, c, and d. [agenda item read].

>> good afternoon, commissioners. moses coret from supervisioner kim's office. seeing that these properties are all in district six, which we happily represent, i would like to say that the supervisor's office is very supportive of these designations. i spoke to some of the members in the audience this afternoon beforehand, and i think it would be appropriate for the department to continue to work with the owners in specific who are here today, but also more generally to add greater predictability and efficiency in permits post designation, which i think is something that

the department has always strived to do, but also with some of these new designations to explore and push the -- the knowledge base for the owners on some of the benefits of falling under a designation program beyond what they see as some of the hindrances because we do, as a city, look to have carrots -- and i don't want to go so far as to say sticks, but measures ensuring the preservation of all the character defining features of all these buildings. but on balance, we are very supportive of these designations and are encouraged by the department coming out and reaching out to our office and explaining these designations which come out of a survey and are related to the central soma plan which is going through its adoption process right now as we kind of put our final amendments onto that plan. and we see this as an integral part to that plan. so i thank you for your

consideration today. >> president wolfram: thank you, mr. koret. >> good afternoon, commissioners. desiree smith, department staff, and can i please have the powerpoint slides up. the items before you today include considerations to recommend article 10 landmark designations, and propose for adoptions through the central soma plan. these include article ten landmark designation of through individual properties, including the designation of one district, the clyde and crooks warehouse district. they were -- [ inaudible ] >> -- today's items were identified through historic resource surveys conducted in the south of market over the

last several years. these properties represent rare and exceptional examples of building with strong cultural associations post 1906 earthquake and fire reconstruction and arkt tekt ral design. their designation fulfills policies included in the central soma plan to protect and recognize central soma's resources. the slide includes a map of the central soma historic resources survey area, existing historic resources are shown in red, orange and black, and eligible resources identified in the survey are shown in green and blue, listed on the right side of the slides are the out comes. of 131 surveyed, 31 were proposed. the central soma plan survey

and historic context statement was adopted by the hpc on march 16, 2016. throughout the development of the central soma survey and his tor toric context statement multiple outreaches were conducted beginning with the launch. survey webpage in 2014. this was followed by meetings during 2014 and 2015. public mailings notifying property owners of pending landmark designation were distributed in october of 2016 following the addition of the properties to the hpc's historicic landmark designation program. staff made phone calls to the owners of these properties. the public notice on march 21, 2018 was sent to property owners on march 1 and 5. a subsequent notice for today's hearing was sent to proper owners on april 9. in addition, a notice was

placed in the newspaper 20 days prior to the mailing. staff has provided information to property owners and tenants regarding the benefits of landmark designation in the mills act and the use of the california his toric building code. information was also provided as to how the proposed protections helped fulfill the policies outlined in the central soma plan. we have also distributed revised ordinances for the three individual landmark designations, and the changes that were made to those ordinances were nonsubstantial. the first property is the new pullman hotel with a period of significance from 1909 to 1964.

it's significant as one of the few remaining and best examples of the residential hotels built in the south of market during the post disaster reconstruction period in san francisco. it's also significant for its association with seasonal african american railroad workers including pullman, porters and mads who on a national scale established the first all black union in the country, contributed to the development of the african american middle class, and laid important foundations to the civil rights movement. this building is the only remaining property in san francisco that contains strong associations with pullmans, porters and mads. 228, 248 townsend street retains integrity of designs and materials. the property also retains ceiling and association to convey its original use as commercial on the ground floor and hotel on the second. the his toric new pullman hotel meets the hpc's priority for

designation of properties with strong cultural or ethnic associations. the former pile drivers drij and structural ironworkers local number 77 union hall with a period of significance from 1949 to 1973 is one of the union halls in san francisco that played an important role in the growth of organized labor in the city. it retains the design features that were present during the established period of significance which reflected the year of the first union meeting in the building until the union moved to oakland. the building appears to meet two of the hpc's priorities for designation including the designation of under represented property types and the designation of the properties with strong cultural or ethnic associations as assist associationed with the history of one organized labor in the city. only one other union hall is

designated as a landmark. the third individual property proposed for zig snags is the hut will utah with a period of significance from from 1848 to 194 1947. it is emblematic of a period of development, and is particularly notable for surviving the large scale reveemt of so-- redevelopment soma, and it is a striking example of edwardian hotel buildings constructed during

the period. the property retains high degree of integrity. lastly, we have the clyde and crooks warehouse historic district bounded by brannan, third, election and townsend streets with a period of significance from 1906 to 1935. the district is historically significant because it is representative of 19 chen you're century development of san francisco in maritime commerce along the west coast. the district's mix of industrial and warehouse buildings interspersed with residential structures is typical of the land use patterns developed in the 19 century in the south of market and continued during the 1906 earthquake and fire reconstruction period.

lastly, the district is one of the last remaining -- [ inaudible ] >> commissioners, the sites include the masonic temple complex and 645 harrison street. both owners appear supportive of designation and will keep you updateds athe project develops. at your next hearing on may 2, you will hear the proposed conservation mission district has been been identified through surveys, and later today you will hear from francis mcmillen who will present additional propertied proposed for designations under

article 11 that were also identified in central soma surveys. in summary, the department has determined that 228248 townsend street, 457 bryant street and 500504 -- [ inaudible ] >> staff also determined that the clyde crooks white districts meet established eligibility districts and that establishment status is warranted. the -- [ inaudible ] >> -- to the board of supervisors. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions as are my colleagues who coauthored these designations. >> president wolfram: thank you. are there any questions for staff? so at this time, i'll take public comment on this item. i have one speaker card for sierra zimme.

>> i've never before. >> president wolfram: you'll have three minutes and there'll be a warning buzzer 30 seconds before your time is up. >> i'm here representing 18 through 26 clyde street. we don't want to be a his toric building. it wasn't even pictured in the buildings on clyde street. we just completed condo conversion. we purchased our unit in 2007? the building had countless updated to the facade, the interior, the exterior by many different tenants, owners and developers over the years. yeah. we just don't feel that we need his toric designation. there's nothing really special about the building. it's cute, and we like living there, but we find it funny that the city thinks it's so important but they won't even

give us street cleaning anymore? they took that away in 2009. so garbage trucks back, back down the alley literally two to three times a week, but the city and the supervisor who cares about this building being historic won't give us street cleaning anymore. so, yeah. we never got a phone call, either. i think she said that they had called all the owners, and nobody got a phone call. i think that's all. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> okay. thanks. >> president wolfram: john paulson. >> hi. good afternoon. thank you all for all your time and volunteering and all your efforts. my name is john paulson. i'm the third generation to own 435 brannan street. my grandfather built the building. we had a series of rubber companies. subsequently, we sold the

business and retained ownership of the real estate. brannan street, the 435 brannan is adjacent to the lusk alley, which by the way is not a city maintained street. 435 brannan, i don't think really fits the designation as being historic. it's an older industrial building, built in the 1930's, and we don't feel -- we've been good stewards of the property. we don't feel we need any city oversight with the designation of it in that over time, we've, you know, we're -- we're looking at other situations with the building, and this would be a hindrance to the value of the building. we don't feel it really fits with the feel of the

lusk-crook-clyde alley. it's not part of that. it's -- it fronts brannan street. so with that said, also, the other thing we've found with another building we own in the area, these historic designations are adding a lot of red tape to our permitting process. so now, when we go in for building permits, it's adding months to the process to go through the planning department with the historic review. so i'm opposed to this. i appreciate your consideration, and if you have any questions, let me know. thank you very much. >> president wolfram: thank you. does any other memory better of the public wish to comment on these items? if so, please come forward. >> president wolfram: no, it's okay. you can just speak. >> i'm ann spivak. i'm re79ing thesome owners association right at lusk

street. i have to tell you i'm torn. there's eight units in my building. it's a very small building. i love that district. i love the fact that it's a small frame. most of the people in my building feel we should not have historic designation, but i kind of like the idea of retaining its charm, and i'm just asking that if there's some sort of -- other than this forum, some sort of forum in the evening that other people in that forum could come and speak to you before you give any kind of designation. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> thank you. >> president wolfram: does any other member of the public wish to approximaspeak on these ite? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner johnck, is that a new comment? >> commissioner johnck: yes, things like th that's fine. i've been spending a lot of time in this area, ever since we've embarked on the central soma plan which we've adopted and just spending a lot of time

getting my arms around what is happening there. and the architecture and the community is -- is stunning, as far as what it reflects in the history of san francisco. and i've been -- frankly, what we're doing here today is so important to kind of put our stamp on recognizing the value of the -- of the -- of the history in that area and to try to get our arms around doing some kind of preservation. because even -- i'm just thinking about the pullman hotel, it's very difficult to just be at the pedestrian level and know that that is the historic pullman hotel. you really have to go on the other side of the street, stand a way aways from it. the commercial space down below is very hectic, and i'm even

thinking well, assuming we're going to head to recommend to the supervisors for the pullman, which i think we should, i'm thinking where are -- there needs some sensitive treatment to where they put the plaque for it. because people -- in other words -- i think what i'm trying to reflect here is my sense of concern that it's changing so much that we need to do this -- make these kind of nominations and move forward with implementation of this -- as a plan, and i want to hear more about what we're doing with very -- 100 properties that have been identified as historic -- over 100 that have been identifies ad historic resource. those are my comments now, but i'll make a motion -- but i'll wait to hear other comments. >> president wolfram: commissioner pearlman. >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. how do we address some of the concerns. here we had speakers and all three of them are opposed to --

>> i thought the third wasny -- >> commissioner pearlman: well, the third one was not opposed, but had people who were opposed. my office was at 31 lusk, for many years, and i walked those alleys many, many, many years. you know, in terms of the first speaker who talked about that it sounded like the building may be hanot have integrity, a then the judge who spoke about 435 brannan, which is not on that side of the historic district, you know, i'm just wondering, mr. frye, could you address, how do we -- you know, do we address their concerns or do we ignore their concerns. >> yeah, and i am curious about 435 brannan. i guess if the building was built -- it says in here that it was built in 1907 or

something, but it's obviously been -- 1910, but obviously it's been alternated at some point to be converted into this deck othis after the

period of significance, but the building was constructed in 1910 as an industrial building. it fit within that history when the survey was completed and these -- the dpr forms completed several years ago. >> so it does -- that seems maybe that we might be careful

there because if the alterations happened after the period of significance, and the building really -- i mean, that's the way it looks, it seems like it should potentially not be considered a contributor. >> well, i mean it's partially a preservation question and partially a policy question and whether or not the commission feel tsz that the background res are braund adequately that the massing of the building and its historic use still contribute to the building at a whole. you can see if we take it out, it would still create an odd jog to the district. to take advantage of the tdr program to basically be able to sell off the air rights and keep the massing and scale consistent with the to make s

the zdesign for those several vacant parcels still fits in with the district because they were at corners or areas where those were crucial. one of those vacant lots has been vacant for the last 40 years, and you will be seeing in-fill on that site fairly soon. this sort of boundary would give this commission the opportunity to opine on that design in the future should this building be demolished if it was a noncontributor. >> so i -- i don't know the address of the -- the -- can i ask you just quickly what's the address of your property? [ inaudible ] >> clyde, so i don't know the integrity of that building from her description -- oh, right, i know which one. the romeo. >> it's the romeo flat. it's listed in the dpr form as a contributor to the district.

and then, the brannan street property that we just talked about. and then, the last commenter speaking regarding -- regarding 340, the hoa at 340 rich, that is a noncontributor to the district. but we're certainly available to talk to the property owners. as you know, or you see from the slide, this has been a multiyear process -- so -- and it's still going on. and there will be opportunities for public comment at the planning commission and at the land use committee hearing, so there's still two more hearings related to this district. but in the meantime we're happy to meet with those property owners. as mr. kuret mepgsed, there are special responsibilities for landmark designations, but we feel there are things that provide financial incentives to landmark properties, and we'd be happy to walk those

commenters through those features. >> i think one of the things that comes up all the time and this gentleman brought it up which is when you have a tenanted building and you're applying for permits on a regular basis that it does add significant time to the permitting process. and again, this is not something we can resolve here, but perhaps it's something within the whole streamlining action -- you know, actions that are happening within the planning department and building department that there might be some ways to address that concern because, you know, if you could -- typically, if you weren't in a district, you could get something over the counter, but all of a sudden it has to go through a permit to alter or certificate of appropriateness. obviously, that adds many, many months and is a substantial burden on a building owner to go through those processes with the potential of losing

potential tenants. so i don't -- again, there's no answer to that today, but i don't know if that's something the department could consider that there are perhaps some expedited ways with certain types of projects sk. >> well, certainly, commissioner, i do think there is an answer at least for now, and you are correct. we are looking at ways to institute some process improvements, and that includes articles ten and 11. articles ten and 11 properties do have priority processing under our permit review process and -- but then not only that, i do want to point out that this commission has delegated the majority of

meeting and walk-through some of the notification materials that we've prepared to discuss the benefits and

responsibilities, absolutely. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. is there a motion? we have a number of designations here, not just the -- not just the clyde and crooks, yes, commissioner hyland? >> vice president hyland: i have a question. will this come before us a second time? >> president wolfram: no, this is not. >> vice president hyland: okay. >> president wolfram: it goes -- it will go to the board. >> the land use committee and the board of supervisors. >> commissioners, just as a point of clarification for the public, the two districts are required by code to go to the planning commission, and those are go as they're dribtieliber the larger central soma plan. all the individual designations will go immediately to the board of supervisors and sort of rest there while the rest of the central soma legislation catches up. >> president wolfram: okay. thank you. >> commissioner johnck: i move that the district's recommendation go to the

planning commission, move that we adopt those, and i move that the specific property's designation be forwarded to the board of supervisors for designation as landmarks. >> i second that. or i second those two motions, depending on whether our president's going to consider them as one or at two. >> clerk: we are considering -- we called them as one. we can call them separately, but there seems to be a recommendation from staff to approve. yeah. very good, then, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the landmark designations on items 9 a through d. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

7-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 10. [agenda item read]. [ inaudible ] >> clerk: sir, sir. >> president wolfram: sorry. this is not a public -- [ inaudible ] >> good afternoon, commissioners. francis mcmillen, department

staff. if i could have the powerpoint up, please. the item before you today is the change in article 11 designation of 26 properties as part of the central soma area plan. the properties were identified through the central soma survey and best represent the architectural social and cultural history of the neighborhood. the buildings include exceptional examples of the industrial commercial and residential hotel properties identified through the survey and there are designation fulfills policies included in the central soma plan to recognize and protect soma's cultural resources. the majority of the properties are not currently rated under article 11 or are classified as category five buildings. five of the properties are eligible for san diego nation as category one or significant, and 21 properties are eligible for category three, contributory. as the map of central soma's resources indicates, the properties are scattered on

maps through t maps throughout the area. red and black indicates existing article 11 buildings and conservation districts and individual article ten landmarks and districts. on append diction includes in your packets includes each of the 26 properties considered for designation today. as noted the buildings proposed for designation include examples of the commercial and residential buildings throughout soma. ten hotels include buildings with restrained ornaments such as the 1907 central hotel once the largest of central soma's rooming hotel and is an example of the residential hotel type.

the industrial warehouse and commercial buildings proposed for designation range in size from multistory factories to 461 bryant street, a two story commercial structure notable for its intricate brick work. art deco is common to a number of buildings being proposed for designation, a rare set of twin buildings with both classical and art deco ornamentation. the five buildings for category one are generally mormon umtal in scale are often prominent corner are properties and feature elaborate corner detail. as discussed in the article ten presentation today, the new

pullman hotel, hotel utah and the pile drivers bridge and structural ironworkers union number 77 building stand out as individually significant for their strong cultural associations, architectural design and association with the industrial era of soma. a rating of three contributory is proposed for the pullman hotel and pile driver's building. the masonic temple complex has also been assigned a category three rating and as noted in the previous presentation, the property will be considered for article 10 landmark designate at a later date. similar to category one buildings, the properties proposed for category three or contributory ratings feature a range of ornamentation details.

the category three contributory properties possess a high level of architectural detail and decoration but are primarily smaller in scale than category one buildings and are located midblock and are commonly one to three stories in height. as outlined by desiree smith in her presentation on the article ten designations, multiple public outreach efforts were conducted through the central soma survey. the change in article 11 designation of the 26 buildings followed the same outreach path. through notifications staff has provided assistance to property owners and tenants including transferrable development rights, tdr, the mills act and the use of the california historic building code. i've also discussed the responsibility such as the permit to alter requirements. in closing, the designation of these properties fulfills policies included in the

central soma plan to recognize and protect soma's cultural resources. the plan's policies include supporting the preservation and recognition and well-being of the areas cultural heritage resources, and supporting the preservation of buildings and features that reflect the industrial and arts legacy of the neighborhood. if approved by the board of supervisors, a number of the benefits -- number of benefits are tied to designation including as previously mentioned, eligibility for tdr, the mills act and use of the california building code. responsibilities tied to designation include the irmt kwoos and review process associated with permits to alter. the department has determined the 26 properties meet the established building requirements for san diego nation and a change in designation from not rated under article 11 or unrated to category one, significant to category three contributory and staff request that they

initiate changes. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner pearlman. >> commissioner pearlman: maybe this is my own ignorance but why is it some properties fall under article 10 and article 11? it seems like we've talked about landmarking in article 10 and now these buildings are showing up in article 11. i didn't know that could happen. i thought there was specific reasons -- >> it's a good question. we are prepared for that question. commissioners, before the hpc when the city operated under a landmarks board just with the planning commission, one of the key pieces of article 11 when it was created, it's really tide to preserving the character of downtown as really and then helping to support the downtown plan general policies as this is sort of our first

venture into expanding the c 3 zoning district and to afford -- i'm giving you the long answer, so just prepare yourselves. as in an effort to expand the c-3 district and sort of the inclusion of central soma into the overall downtown plan, will there are many properties downtown that have boeing designations. orl 11 is just an exterior designation. article 11 is only based on architecture. it's not based on significance under persons or events, and it's a way to help ensure that these properties are protected in two ways. one is that they are protected through the use of the tdr program and two, they're protected so that in fulfillment of the downtown area plan policies. so the simple way that we generally explain it is that you know article 11 is really more of a policy tool to help

facilitate other programs whereas article 10 really is the best of the best. it's what the commission and the city value and want to clarify that there are specific features and history related to those buildings that should be considered while article 11 is more of a general designation. and another example of this is the category three buildings. they're contributory buildings, but they're not necessarily located in a district. that was a decision the downtown plan made in articulating that these buildings contribute to downtown. they don't necessarily distribute to a specific historic geographic area. i hope that clarifies -- >> commissioner johnck: no no no, th . >> what you're saying is a lot of this designation zoning wise is going to change to a c designation. >> that is correct. >> that's the part that was missing because now it makes sense that you could have article 11 because that's what

i why understand. >> and one last piece if any property that did have both designations came before you, we would always bring the article 10,000, the higher process. >> the grant oriente -- grand oriente wouldn't be considered for its architecture, but it is considered an article 11. >> that is correct. >> that's inconsistent. >> that is also correct. it may be significant for architecture. i do not want to speak without referring back to the dpr form. >> i don't think so, but... >> so once again what you have is a page of history is worth a volume of logic. >> one other thing i would mention is that there is a -- there is a process for demolition under article 11, that this commission has

purview over, whereas article 10, we would have to dedesignati dedesignate the property to issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition, so article 11 is considered the more flexible preservation tool. >> so it's the pullman, the new pullman, the hotel utah and what's the third one? >> the pile drivers. >> right. >> right. >> right. >> that's what was confusing. >> all right. so we just did that. >> yes. >> right. >> thank you. double layer of protection. >> yes, that's right. >> president wolfram: okay. so why don't we take -- we haven't done public comment on this item? no. we'll take public comment, and i think i have a speaker card for sharon mcvey, and i'm sorry. i can't read your name. [ inaudible ] >> thank you for giving me the

opportunity to speak. i'm here with my two brothers. the mcvey owns the building at 198-194 fifth street, corner of fifth and howard. you probably know it as the hotel george or the chieftain or the m&m tavern. we have a little bit of mixed emotions and feeling about our family's building getting this designation. it could be quite positive in some respects because we would be able to use the designation. we're not going any higher than the five stories that currently exist. basically, we can't, and we will have the 5-m project on the one side of us and evidently 33 stories and 18 stories directly across the street from us. so our primary concern is to make sure when we need to put in the rest of the double pane

windows so that the tenants don't leave when the residence of the construction starts, we probably should start now because it's going to take a long time to get those permission. when the hotel continental went out across the street, we lost some tenants. we'd like to be able to ensure that we can put in the double pane windows to protect the tenants from the noise of construction. when all this is said and done, there's going to be some very big giants all around us. so we want to make sure that we can keep the integrity of the building and that we don't have four stories with nobody in the apartments 'cause it's been so noisy and chaotic during the construction process. so i think we're positive, and a little concerned, and we have had opportunity to speak, and

we will take advantage of that opportunity so we can ask specific questions. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you, miss mcvey. did 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. commissioners? commissioner hyland? >> vice president hyland: i just have a response to the last comment from the public as an -- indulge me. it's not directly related to what's before us, but on sound -- laminated glass would actually be better than insulated glass, and it would probably be more appropriate from a historic perspective, so that's something to think about when you're considering the options. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner johnck? >> commissioner johnck: in keeping with my theme of that it's very important what we're doing here with the central

soma plan south end district, etcetera, because this whole area is going to go, i mean it's undergoing just tremendous change and i -- even though i know many of the businesses that are there, too -- it's great to see the economic productivity and everything, but whatever we can do to keep our preservation work relevant and important, so i would -- will move the designation of these listed properties to article 11 status. >> president wolfram: thank you. we have a motion. do we have a second? >> second. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there's a motion that's been seconded to initiate change in designation for these properties. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moves,

commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0, and places us on item 11. [agenda item read]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness to restore the historic facade of 349 lexington street. the proposed project is to correct a violation pertaining to the removal of the nonhistoric stucco on the front and visible side facade. the project sponsor was previously granted an administrative certificate of appropriateness in january of 2017 for light well in-fill, addition of sky lights, repair of front facade windows and a

new opening on the rear facade. [please stand by for captioner switch]

. >> i am available for any questions, and this concludes my presentation. >> president wolfram: thank you. does any member of the public wish to comment on this item? if so, please come forward. yeah? seeing and hearing none, we'll

close public comment. commissioners? commissioner johnck, is that an old comment? all right. >> commissioner johnck: that's an old. would someone else like to talk about liberty? >> i move to approve. >> president wolfram: we have a motion. >> second. >> president wolfram: and a second. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. >> president wolfram: thank you. hearing is adjourned.