speak about tomorrow at the planning commission, but these are things to think about. plan accessibility and the size of the notice. and 20 days, that's a very short amount of time. thank you very much. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other speaker wish to comment on the item, if so, please come forward. we'll close public comment seeing none. i have actually one -- this a minor comment but one thing that jumped out, the notice, posters. and the requirement for a notice poster every 25 feet, that means opt ferry building you would have 64 notice post-ers. i'm wondering if that one should be changed to a building of 25 feet and less, one poster. 25 and 50 feet, two. i'm concerned about the damage to the paint on the ferry building, we have 64 posters on that building. maybe that one could be modified to be a little more flexible.

commissioners, comments? i think these are great improvements. i'm thrilled we're doing stuff to streamline the process. i think these are all going to be really helpful, so it's a really great package and impressive presentation. thank you for such a clear presentation. commissioner johns. >> commissioner johns: this is fantastic, i don't know what the difference is between printing -- you still have to print something. i don't know if the staff has any comments about how you -- you're just trying to save paper? >> yeah, absolutely. the main thing was to make the requirements consistent so we have fewer things to trip over. >> commissioner johns: and more uniform? >> right, when you look at something, you're like, well, really, is that the right way to

do that? this is a 311 packet, we mail out thousands of these. this one alone, generated 14 pounds of paper, that had to be mailed to 115 addresses and so there is a lot of things for us to send out to reproduction services. and regarding the sizes, absolutely, there is lot of important content that needs to be on there. we're not sure what document will fit that, so it's minimum dimensions of the standard post card and the minimum of 11 x 17 for the poster. and the reason for the delayed operative date is to give us time to work those things out, figure out what kind of equipment changes might be involved. and make sure we get all of the content onto the documents that is proper. but you know, i got a jury summons the other day, it was on a post card, i'll be following the instructions. there is a lot of things that

can come in different formats and is the packet with the 11 x 17 the only way to do it? it's not the only way. it's one way to do it. we are locking in minimum requirements, standard requirements for when and where and to whom these go. and as 311 and 312 were already drafted, it's up to the zoning administrator to manage it. so the question about the ferry building, there is a provision we copied over that says the zoning administrator can determine this is not physically feasible on the posters, so we have that in there. i will take a closer look to make sure that doesn't bind us to do every 25 feet. >> president wolfram: sounded like it was binding, the way i read it, it was binding. so give is gradation, up to 100 is this many and it's more

staggered. >> right, yeah. so that can certainly be recommended modification to the ordinance as well. >> was there a motion? i'm in favor of the packet. >> president wolfram: make an amendment? >> commissioner johns: agree with your mental health. >> president wolfram: thank you. to make the poster requirement potentially more flexible or practical. >> commissioner johns: right. >> president wolfram: we have a motion and a second? >> commissioner johns: i move that we endorse -- >> there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval as amended to require. [roll call] so moved,

commissioners that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. this will place us on item 7, 2018-004346 fed, 3333 california street. for review and comment. through the chair, we did acknowledge and grant a request for organized. >> we received a letter from organized opposition requesting a 10-minute speaking time and that has been granted. >> john ram, i'm taking an unusual step to give you brief background on the project. this is an unusually large site for you to be considering and us to be looking at. i wanted to give you a quick background on a project we've been working on for two years and talk about that in the context of the nomination that you're considering. if i could have a -- i guess

it's up. so the site is of course, it's almost 11-acre site in the northwest part of the city. it's proposed mixed use residential development by laurel heights partner. i think those representatives of those firms are here today. it would partially retrofit the existing office building and add new construction for total of 558 housing units to the laurel heights neighborhood. this gives you a quick review of the data for the site. there is as i said, 558 units, about 50,000 square feet of office would remain under the proposed project. there is variant being studied that would increase that to 740-some units with no office. you can see the retail and childcare components on the screen. it would be a number of separate

buildings that with be created partially by dividing the existing building and partially by adding new buildings to the site. i will say within the site plan, there were a number of concerns that we at the department had about the urban design. this is unusual because it's a large site, with a building in the middle of the site, surrounded by the greenery. so the goal as we went forward when we worked with the developers to figure out a way to divide up the site, bring pathways through the site to connect it to the surrounding neighborhood, which is standard for us when we look at these large sites throughout the city, this being unusual, given where it is locked and the fact that -- located and the fact that it has potential resource in the middle of the site. we worked with the developer to figure out how to divide up the site to achieve their goals and ours.

and you can see an image here of what a view of the site and the redone building that would accommodate housing on the site. i'm sure that there are others in the room that can answer more specific questions. as i understand it, the adaptive reuse strategy would retain 60% of the original structure, at the same time, updating the facade of the building and the public access. it's a very large project. unusually large for this part of the city. it's a project we've been working on for a long time with the developer and their architect and wanted to let you know about that as background context before the decision today. thank you for that and i'll turn it over to desiree.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, desiree smith, planning department staff. the item is a national register nomination for the fireman fund home insurance office at 3333 california street. the city has given the opportunity to comment on nominations to the national register. the nomination was prepared by michael corbett and denise bradley for the laurel heights improvement association. the comments today on the nomination will be forwarded to the state office of historic preservation in the form of resolution. the national register anonymous inflation is scheduled to -- nomination is scheduled to be heard tomorrow. i would like to note that the laurel heights association provided a slight to the department and also to members of the hpc via e-mail on april 30. and that was following the publication of our case report

for the may 2 hearing, which was continued to today. that did include revisions, a few substantive changes were made, including some that addressed two of our comments in the report. so i'll elaborate more on those later. first, i would like to summarize the nomination itself. the fireman's fund insurance company home office is on the north side of california street. in the laurel heights neighborhood. the 10.2 acre property consists of two building and landscape, including 4-story office building. that is located at the center of the property. in addition, there is one-story service building in the northwest corner of the property. the landscape design is out door spaces, parking lots,

vegetation. the principle outdoor spaces are the entrance court, terrace and the area around the outdoor area. as stated in the national registry, the fireman's fund home office is locally significant under criteria a for events in the area of commerce for association with the san francisco insurance industry, an important industry in the history 0 the city from the gold rush to the present. it represents the postwar boom in san francisco's insurance industry when many companies built new office buildings. it states that the property is significant under criterion a, development one of the bodies of the postwar decentralization. the design is one of the principle embodiments of and as

an example of a corporate headquarters in san francisco, that reflects mid 20th century principles. the three masters include the architect, edward b page, the engineer firm of john j. gould. construction began and ends in 1967, and the last addition was completed. i would like to point out in the first draft we received, which is in your packet, that was 50 years ago, in 1958, so that period is significant and has since been changed to 1957. staff has reviewed the nomination which we find to be of high quality, research and well written and agree that the property is historically significant and you a and c and

is eligible for registering on the national historical places. as an important example of suburban property type, however, we respectfully disagree that the home office itself or the development of the san francisco insurance industry in the mid to late 20th century have made a significant enough contribution to the city's history and qualify for listing on the national register. it appears that it occurs while the business was housed in the previous occasion at 40147 california street and not in the subject property. the department agrees that the property is locally significant under this criterion, however, staff does not agree with authors of the nomination that edward b page is a master architect. the nomination includes more

information than initially presented, the staff analysis has not changed. the service building is a contributing feature to the campus. this auxiliary building is prominent to the main office building as well as the overall design of the campus landscape. we do not find the service building. our recommendation, the action requested of the commission on behalf of the state office of the historic preservation is to provide comments on whether the fireman's fund office meets the criteria of significance of the national register and to recommend or not recommend the nomination of the property for listing on the register. you have a copy of the draft resolution. two of the comments that staff proposed to be addressed have already been addressed in the subsequent revision, so we

propose striking those items and those two sentences are consideration to end the period of significance in 1956 and the correction of minor typos and gra mat cal errors. finally the department has received four letters in opposition to the designation. and we received another letter today, so i have hard copies that i'll distribute. just in case you didn't receive those via e-mail. that concludes my presentation. before i open it up for questions, we do have two presentations. first from the project sponsor, the laurel heights neighborhood improvement association. and then from the organized opposition to the nomination which is the owner of the property.

>> thank you. would the project sponsor come forward? and ten minutes, will that be adequate? yes? >> good afternoon. i'm denise bradley, one of the two authors of the nomination, i'm the landscape historian. i dealt with the landscape portions. michael corbett is unable to be here today. i wanted to give a brief summary before the laurel heights improvement association, the sponsor of the nomination provides more comments. a lot of this is repetition that you just heard. the project is located -- the property is located on 2.2 achers in the laurel heights area of the city, consisting of two buildings and landscape features designed to function as

a single residency. the property is significant in the area of commerce for its association with the city's insurance industry at the time that the fireman's home office was constructed, it was one of the largest insurance companies in the u.s. and the only major one headquartered in the city, it was a leader among insurance companies in san francisco and its embrace of new ideas symbolized by the way away from downtown. criteriion a is significant in the area of community, planning and development is one of the principle embodiments of the postwar plan of decentralization and urbanization. there is the first to be built outside of the downtown core and it was the first design fully adapted to the automobile. under criterion c it is

significant as the work of three masters. the architect, the engineering firm and the landscape firm. it is also significant as example of a corporate headquarters that reflects design principles in landscape and architectural elements. thank you. >> good afternoon, president wolfram and commissioners, i'm vice president of the laurel heights improvement association. overhead, please, which sponsored this nomination and we're pleased that staff proposes that the commission adopt resolution. thank you very much. however the revisions requested by planning staff are inappropriate because they request more than the national register to have criteria require.

architect, historic resource survey states that the property appears to be eligible for listing under criteria a 1 and c-3 and as to architect page, his resume does accord him master architect status. kerry and company is one of the most established architectural fimpls and their survey was commissioned when they owned the property. a master is defined as a known craftsman of consummate skill, or an anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality, or a figure of generally recognized greatness in the field. the nomination explains that on the farmer's fund project, mr. page coordinated the contributions of all, he was described as the master in the

degenkolb office and page was admired as the master in charge and took the lead. the nomination clearly documents many projects of mr. page, both before and after this home office was built, including one as to which the aia awarded him award of merit for design of the 1954 house in belvedere. and the work on the fireman fund building that represented his career, made mr. page locally recognized as a master is sufficient. it does not require he build a string of buildings. criterion a is satisfied by a pattern of events of historic trend that made a contribution to the development of the community, state or the nation. the nomination documents the

manner in which they made a significant contribution to the development of san francisco. and does not have to show that it was the most important industry or had a statewide influence. staff argues that a state wide influence is required. insurance was expensive, so a local industry arose. fireman's fund gained reputation for integrity by paying its claims in the 1906 earthquake and fire and many earlier fires, rather than going bankrupt as many companies did and was the only local company left by 1895 and built many buildings. the nomination explains that the fireman's fund is significant in the area of commerce for its association with the san francisco insurance industry. an important industry in the history of the city from the gold rush to the present and in

particular represents the postwar boom in san francisco's insurance industry when many companies built new offices. at that time, fireman's fund was one of the largest insurance companies in the united states and was a leader among all insurance companies in the city. the nomination also documents innovations that occurred after the opening of the home office building at this site. at that time, an important and news worthy source of new business was this category of inland marine insurance that would insure any interest against all perils anywhere in the world, covered motion pictures, athletes and that type of activity and fireman's fund was second to lloyd's of london in providing this type of insurance. they combined with american insurance company to become the

largest company headquartered in the west. as to the master landscape architect, the nomination includes many accolades and awards granted to the master firm of eckbo, royston and williams. supplementation is not necessary, you don't have to include every accolade. as to the service building, staff uses the long standard in arguing that the service building as an auxiliary building that is secondary to the large main building does not play a critical role in the overall design and landscape or setting to convey the property significance. a critical role in the overall design is not required. the rules for counting resources explain that contributing building or structure adds to the historic associations if it was present during the period of significance, related to the documented significance of the prorlt and possesses historic

integrity. the service building related to the documented significance of the property as an example of the international style of architecture where form follows funks. and it was designed to fit within the unifying brick wall and to be a component of it. thus, the service building is considered a contributing resource under the national register of rules and it was designed and built during the period of significance. lastly, as to the letter from the developer to the commission president. with reference to the planning department's modern design, historic context statement, that was not intended to be a comprehensive review and analysis of modern architecture in san francisco, but rather it was developed to provide a framework for consistent and informed evaluations of san francisco's modern buildings and landscapes. and an appendix does mention

architect page and says further research would be required in relationship to him. our association has advocated for all residential development of the site from the beginning. and opposed the developer's request to commercialize the site and change the zoning to retail. the site is right next to the laurel village shopping center which we think adequately serves the retail needs. we've submitted many letters and recently a petition with 800 signatures to the supervisor supporting all residential development. we've also told the developer we're preparing an alternative plan and we think we can develop many if not more residential units on the property, and much quicker than during the 15-year period that the developer is proposing to implement his plan. also, we did inform the developer by e-mail before we submitted the nomination.

and during the month -- [bell ringing] -- the state evaluated the nomination, the developer made no objection to the substantive content of the nomination. but, during the years we met with them, both uc concealed the historical significance of it from us. since the developer plans to demolish 51% of the home office, the fact that he'll study -- [bell ringing] -- shows that the national register process will assist with ceqa. >> president wolfram: thank you, your time is up. you can wrap it up. >> for the record, we did not request the continuance on may 2. staff requested it, so the director could be here. but we did oppose it. and so we agree that the overall support is appropriate, but the revisions are not. and we'd be happy to answer any questions, but i have copies of

the letter that i e-mailed to the staff. >> thank you very much. so at this time, we'll -- the developer has i think a 10-minute period they would like to make statements? you could come forward and we'll take public comment following that. >> president wolfram: we have your april 23rd letter ready. or is this different? ok. this will be helpful thank you. >> president, commissioners, mr. frei, thank you for the opportunity to speak today to provide you with additional context for lhia, i'm referring to the acronym, laurel heights improvements association nomination.

as long time supporters of historic preservation and many of the projects being adaptive reuse, we recognize the importance of the work this commission does and fully respect your role and responsibility and that of city preservation staff. as you may be aware, and as commissioner -- director ram pointed out, we've been engaged in extensive entitlement for the last three and a half years. we take pride in the community outreach and distinguished from the two to three community meetings for most development projects, we've held over 125 individual and community outreach meetings to date, that includes over 10 organized neighborhood and stakeholder groups. our outreach since 2014, has included many meetings with up to 10 or so members, whose homes

face the currently open space on the site. so be clear, lhai has been opposed to the project since the beginning. most importantly, in the hundreds of pages of documents and correspondence that i have here in this binder, exchanged between us and lhia, they've never expressed any concern about retaining historical aspects of the property, nor suggested we retain the existing building. consistently their issues and comments have focused on scale, density, height, use, traffic, noise, homelessness, vaguery, crime and other typical development related concerns. with respect to the building that they purport to want to preserve, over the past three years, and this is since the time that we informed lhia that we wanted to incorporate the

main portion of the existing building into our design voluntarily, lhia has consistently criticized the existing building for the design and used terms up as "oversized building", "massive office structure". lhia has been specific in our meetings with them over the last three years, that we should follow the lead of the cpmc development because they do not have any publicly accessible open space. and this incidentally was a project that they've expressly supported before any historic assessment has been done. they stated to us that, we hope you will see the light and change direction with a project that would conform with the established patterns of surrounding residential neighborhoods. incidentally, our project that

we do have proposed that you saw up on there on the screen, we're taking what is currently about a half acre of usable open space and increasing it to over 5 acres of open space in our revised design. we believe that lhia's interest in the property's historic quality is not genuine and their true motive is to delay our efforts to entitle the proposed housing project as they have from the beginning. and as such, we respectfully respect this commission and request them to concur with the staff's analysis of the nomination report and request for modification of the nomination as set forth in the staff report. and we are available to answer any questions. and i'll now turn over to greg miller. >> you have about five and a

half minutes. >> ok, i will be brief. good afternoon, my name is greg miller, land use council for the property owners. i ask that you concur with hpc staff recommendations regarding modifications to the proposed nomination, specifically we agree with staff that under criterion a, neither fireman's fund nor the insurance industry rise to the required level of significance. we agree with staff that most of fireman's innovations were prior to the move to the site and we agree that the development of the insurance industry has not made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of california's history and culture. we also agree with staff that under criterion c, the project's architect edward page is not a master architect. he was no prolific and we see no

evidence of his influence in the community. and the city's exhaustive survey of mid century modern buildings relegates any mention of mr. page to one line in appendix b, which is quite telling when you consider we're talking about a 10-acre site with several large buildings on it. we also believe that the nomination reports this character defining features needs editing. we submit that alleged features such as the circular garage ramps, exposed peers and the service building should be removed. as you see in the slides i've provided, the service building is a similar utility building intended to be hidden from view. it does not relate to the main building or convey role in -- play any role in the

significance of the property. thank you for the overhead. if i could have it back again. so, i just wanted to point out, here's the service building. here's the main building. you've got a tremendous amount of distance between the two. you've also got all this landscaping in here that basically blocks the service building from view. and if you look at sort of how it's been designed and the parking around it, it's almost been isolated on its own island. the main building itself also turns away from the service building. there aren't any clear direct views to it. here's a close-up of one of the entrances to the service building. again, a very you utility building. covered parking near the entrance.

here's a shot, looking for from the parking lot west toward the building. again. here's ventilation area on the west wall of the service building. another shot of the service building, a different entrance to it. here's a view of the exterior wall of the service building on laurel street. you can see again, blank brick facade with the three windows in it. another shot of that same laurel street facade, just from the immediate sidewalk there. this is looking south. again, really a blank street wall. and again, another shot there of that same facade.

then here it is continuing along california street. there is really nothing breaking that wall up, other than the little bit of landscaping there. that's all i have. we're available for questions. we have about a minute and a half left. don, do you want to ... >> good afternoon, i'm don, development and i've been involved in the ceqa process discussed before. i wanted to give you background on the ceqa process. the initial study was issued on the 25th of april, the comment period is on the 25th. the initial study identifies four categories to be studied in the environmental impact report, one of which is historic resources. the planning staff is preparing a response to the hra prepared by lsa for the initial study.

the key conclusions are consistent with the staff report before you today that the property was determined eligible for the inclusion of california register under criterion 1 and 3, which are functionally equivalent to the criteria januaryion a and c. we'll be coming back to you just before the certification hearing and on march 21, we were before the arc to review the historic preservation alternatives which are currently being evaluated and completed with the project sponsor and the planning staff. >> thank you very much. so at this time we're going to take public comment. does any member of the public want to speak to this matter? if so, please come forward. you'll have three minutes and a warning buzzer at 30 seconds before your time is up. >> hello, my name is milo.

i agree completely with the applicant, the site does not meet the criteria of a historic site. and that designating it so would not be the best use of this land and these buildings. and that san francisco as a city would benefit far more from converting it to housing rather than preserving it as is. preserving it actually has negative impacts far greater than any positive of memorializing a mediocre building for an insurance company at a time when the country was expanding in such a way that is environmentally harmful. and now we know to be the case. so moving forward, we would all

be much better off, if instead of the sprawling campus, there was housing for people to live and to achieve their dreams. and to create the history of the future. which we're stifling by sometimes needlessly designating bland buildings with meager justifications of historical significance. so, please, don't grant this site historical validation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm richard, i live across the street from the site and i wanted to make a couple of comments because my words were quoted in the comments incorrectly as often is the

case. humongous, oversized, massive, true i wrote those, but i wrote those when you took a low sprawling building that matched the contour of the land, cut it in half and put three stories on top of two buildings and end up with two square massive humongous oversized buildings, it was not a reference to the fireman's fund building that stands there today. thank you. >> my name is chelsea. i live around four blocks away from the building. i walk about it, i run by it, bike by it, almost every single day. and something i really notice about the building is that it's closed off as shown in the photos. there is a brick fence around the whole thing. it's not very accessible. in my opinion, it doesn't add much character to my community, the community that i run, walk, bike in every day.

the plans that i've seen for the new development have much more open space, much more public space. and i agree with the committee's recommendation this does not meet historical significance. i went to a college with a very historically significant 1950s architecture library, lots of people came to it every day. i went to unr, and it no longer exists on campus. it was a great building and something we memorialized. but it also didn't reach historical significance. people came from around the country to see it, and if that doesn't meet historical significance, i'm suspect this building does not. i never see when i walk by people flooding the park or the green spaces around it. it looks like private property. it does not look like something that the public would use. in contrast to the development proposed which would provide housing, childcare and public

spaces to the community, i think this would be a much more valuable use of space. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, laura clark, pro-housing advocate. and i want to sort of draw attention to the potential of the body that we really creating a bad precedent. because if we are really talking about preserving an important example of suburban corporate property, like maybe we shouldn't. suburbanization was a bad thing. we should not have been suburbanizing san francisco. and we should not suburbanize san francisco going forward. we're a city. we need to thrive. we need our community to become denser and vibrant and have more people have opportunities to create more historical events in

these communities. the city needs to grow. and that does mean change. and we should preserve things of true historical relevance. and it was a little interesting to hear about the history of the insurance company. maybe not that interesting. i don't know how you all feel about the education we had about a particular insurance company. but i think that there are far more historical events that have happened in san francisco. there are far more beautiful and worthy of preservation buildings. and if we're talking about preserving a style of campus where people are doing car centric living, that is something we need to be walking away from. and i mean walking. we need people to be walking away from car-centric investment. we need them to get into buses, transit and moving around our city in new ways. we cannot be preserving a

car-centric infrastructure anymore and i hope this body takes that goal seriously. that this is a new way of being, so that new events can take place, so that people can find opportunity here. we have built -- we had had eight jobs for every one unit of housing over the past ten years. there is a going to be a mixed use community here that has potential to thrive and change and grow. and that's a good thing, too. thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to comment? seeing and hearing none, we close public comment. commissioners, i would like to remind you that we are seeing a national register nomination. for members of the public, this is not a local landmark designation, this is recommendation that this body may or may not make to the state office of historic preservation regarding this property being placed on the national register. the matter before us is consideration of this item. it is not the consideration of

the proposed project which will be before us in a few months. not sure of the timing. so this is the case that we have before us. commissioners? >> i will throw in one thing that i learned in the nomination, of interest to me, this building was completed in 1957, two years before the crown building was complete. which is interesting, because we think of that as our first modern high rise or office building and so this building actually predated it by a few years. >> commissioner johnck: i think this is really kind of ironic. as a new member of arc,

commission hyland was there that day and commission pearlman, we were doing a great job of reviewing the adequacy of the presentation alternatives for the project. and they were good. they were great. and we were looking at the value of the historic -- not only historic buildings, but the historic landscape and the integration of that as significant in the integration of those elements. and we asked the owner and the project sponsor to go back and do a better job on that and give us a little more attention to particularly, i was interested in the landscape. and the relationship to the building. so i think we've already got a wonderful process going on. and i did not hear anything that -- of convincing to lend

this to national register status. i mean, if anything, we should be looking at something local first or even eligibility, so to me, this is shock value. it's too shocking to -- i didn't hear anything really convincing to enable me to support a national register. nomination. so that's my initial thought. >> commissioner black: yes, hi. when i moved to san francisco about 30 years ago i happened to be in this part of town and hit the bricks when i saw this property. as an architectural historian, i think it's a really good example of what was happening in mid century corporate architecture. really, an early example of the

corporate campuses we're seeing in silicon valley today, where there is strong planned spaces outdoors for people to use, you can imagine a meeting space out there. and so i think it's a really good example of this type. having said that, i strongly believe that this is a good site for housing. i do see that as something that is going to happen on this property. my understanding is that -- and correct me if i'm wrong -- is that the ceqa process has already determined the value of this as a resource. and the mitigation measures in my understanding would not increase by national nomination

register determination. that there would be no time or cost delay if this were put -- if we were to recommend registered approval. >> that is our understanding as well, conversely, as the final decision is really up to the state commission and the keeper of the national register, they may or may not take this body's comments into consideration as well and move forward with the nomination as planned. >> thank you, commission johns. >> commissioner johns: looking at this, i don't feel as strongly as you do on the other hand, i don't feel as strongly as you do either. if i were to describe this application, i would say it is thin. it is really thin. i think that probably i would go

along with the staff's report and recommendation. but it is hard for me to get particularly excited about. now, i would just like to say that each of us undoubtedly has our own feelings about the -- on the subject of housing in san francisco. but i don't think those feelings are particularly pertinent to what we're supposed to do today. so i think that i would say this barely skates by. i agree with the staff recommendation. >> thank you am . other commissioners, any comments? is there a motion? >> >> commissioner johns: i move that we approve the staff recommendation. two of the things, the typos and

grammar have been corrected. ok, fine. and there was some other thing that was addressed and corrected, too. ok, so. >> we have a motion and a second. >> president wolfram: very good, commissioners, on that motion that has been seconded to adopt a resolution in support of the nomination subject to revisions of the national historic places. [roll call] >> so moved, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. we'll place this on item 8, 6301 third street. this is a landmark designation.

can i have the projector or the laptop, please, sorry. good afternoon, commissioners. desiree smith, planning department staff. the next item before you is consideration to recommend landmark designation of the arthur h. coleman center, 6301 third street. it was nominated by dr. walker of true hope church through a community sponsored application. 6301 third street is significant for its association with dr. arthur coleman, a nationally prominent african-american lawyer, physician and influential health care and social rights advocate. he purchased an empty parcel to construct a medical facility to

serve bayview residents. opening in 1960, the coleman medical center reflected the popular architectural styles of the period. he recruited a team of african-american physicians to join him in providing comprehensive health to the low-income african-american residents. he was a local pioneer in the health center movement that ban began in the 1960s. he worked to achieve racial equity in the health care profession and advocated for the bayview african-american community. since our last hearing, during which this nomination was first presented to you, some minor revisions were made, including photographs and editing and formatting changes, the content that was added was added to the section fighting for equity

within the medical profession, civil rights activist and community leader and hunters point bayview community services. a floor plan illustrating the spaces as the ordinance was added and that can be found on page 31. per your request, we clarified that the material of window and door frames is aluminum and the character defining feature section of both the designation report have been updated to reflect the changes. one additional revision that staff would like for you to consider today, to change the description of the stair to be more specific. right now it says open stair. and so we would like to propose that it reads straight run stair, second floor landing configuration. the reason for that is the materials of the stair are not the historic materials. so we just want to be specific in the ordinance that it's the location, the configures ration

of the stair in the open lobby and not the actual materials. another reason for that, you may recall in the last hearing, the tenants, which is hunters point bayview clinic intend to paint a mural commemorating the history and legacy of dr. coleman and the medical center on the stairs. and so in order to make that process easy for them and not require for them to paint that those, it's non-historic material, the stairs. that's one consideration we'd like for you to look at today. and the department has received two letters in support of designation and those are included in the packet. the nomination is also supported by supervisor cohen. and the property also meets the hpc priorities for dezzing i

niagara nation. which -- designation. and those with strong cultural or ethnic associations. the department recommends that the hpc recommend designation as an article 10 landmark. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, we'll take public comment. any member of the public wish to speak? you're not obligated, but if you're here and wish to speak, we would love to hear you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm pastor of true hope in bayview. on the 12th of this month, i

celebrated 50 years in pastoral ministry. i'm still there, but retiring. i thought i'd float it out. the preliminary recommendation adopted a revolution to support the nomination subject to revision of the national register of historic place. the subject property is significant for its association with dr. arthur coleman, african-american lawyer, physician, influence, health care and civil rights advocate. i was a patient of dr. coleman for several years prior to him deceasing. and i am 86 years old, so 30, 40

years ago i went to see dr. coleman as my primary physician, he asked me, what are you doing? because you don't look like your age. at that time, maybe i've changed. but he told me that. at that time, i said, dr. coleman, i do power walking one hour, four days a week. my wife put a lot of pressure on me, said you're going to have to start eating proper and i did that. she got me walking. so in time, he was deceased several years ago, i'm still here and going strong. so one of the disturbing and great and noble -- as a matter of fact, since coming here and bringing this to you, i'm not really studied deep in depth all

the contribution that dr. coleman made. all of you know that asthma, cancer, at one time, there is still problems because of all of the toxic throughout the air, the shipyard and all of that. but with man like that, making such a sacrifice. [bell ringing] i'm looking at the future population with the type of person like this, would be encouragement and inspiration to future generations. i definitely applaud you, for the last time i was here, how you voted in reference to this project. i want to thank you very, very much. i was willing to sit there a long time. >> [laughter] thank you and we appreciate it. thank you for your patience sitting through the previous items. does any other member of the public want to speak? hearing none, we'll close public comment. >> commissioner johns: well, as baffling as the last one was,

this is the opposite end of the spectrum, this is what i would call meritorious beefy project. so i propose that we move it along on its road to be designated. >> secretary. >> great, a motion and second. >> commissioner black: for all the reasons that i supported the legacy business, i completely support this project. i think it has the association with dr. coleman going strongly and it's a fabulous building with amazing intact elements which are miraculously still there. so i strongly support it. >> clerk: i think we have a motion and a second. >> president wolfram: we do. on that motion, then commissioners to approve the landmark dez -- >> one moment, we have --