out side more, and i certainly hear them more, but i cannot -- personally cannot think of a location in which there just wouldn't be impact, so i'm struggling to -- i hear those concerns, and i think it's been thoughtfully done. >> i think it's a design problem that we're prepared to solve and having it exposed out in the garden is a nonstarter for us. >> president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: mr. paul, the hot tub, how much of it is enclosed under some type of a canopy or roof? halfway? is there a stair above it? >> it wasn't originally -- there was definitely -- >> president melgar: thank you pull the mic again?

>> inexperienced. >> commissioner richards: you don't want this kind of experience. trust us. >> there was a significant -- when there was a hot tub, there was a significant fence by planning. we can do a seven-foot fence, as high as we're allowed to do a fence. we definitely did not have a covering, but it was tucked into the corner. it did have an outdoor shower, but it was kind of tucked in as much as possible. >> commissioner richards: one other question, the neighbors -- maybe the neighbor can answer. i'm assuming the hot tub is right there on the property line and you're going to put the pump and everything far away. where are the windows to the bedroom in the neighbor's house? three floors up, like directly perpendicular? at 45°? is it -- >> it's set back from the property line about 5 feet, i believe. >> okay. and this is a flat roof, two story building. is there a property line window

there? >> i can do this for you. >> commissioner richards: thank you? >> you know those clever things where you ev've got to layer y elevation with the building in front of you? >> commissioner richards: i do. >> i've got one of those. okay. let's d let's do it. i'm going to draw in a hot tub. >> commissioner richards: okay. great. can you talk into the mic? >> i'm drawing first. >> commissioner richards: it moves. it moves. >> i think that's a bedroom window. >> commissioner richards: okay. and is it a transom window? is it an operable window? >> not sure. >> commissioner richards: okay. >> but here's the hot tub. >> commissioner richards: hold on a second. we'll ask you, too. >> so this profile is their

building. that's the big deck. i believe that's the clear story in the living room, so this is the top floor. >> commissioner richards: with the bedroom window. >> with the bedroom. >> commissioner richards: now, next-door neighbor, while you still have the drawing up there. >> it's a window -- >> commissioner richards: could you speak into the microphone, please. >> where you see the red -- >> commissioner richards: yes. can we see the overhead, again? can you push it over so we can take a look here? there we go. okay. so we'll see the hot tub down there. is that an operable window? >> that's the window off our -- >> this is a bedroom window. however, this whole wall are sliding glass doors. so -- so the hot tub -- the noise would travel through the patio doors as well as the

window. and we also have two other floors. one on the second floor is the living room, and then, the ground floor is a family room. >> commissioner richards: okay. okay. thank you very much. so where i'm coming down on this is everybody that i know that has a house that has a hot tub has it tucked exactly where the project sponsor is putting it. my personal experience is my husband wants a hot tub, and guess where we were going to put it? same place because we don't want to be running through the the yard if it's cold, running through if we're naked. we hear our neighbor three doors down on 16th street, and we're on beaver street. sound travels, so i don't think moving the hot tub over 5 feet, you're not going to get much of a difference. i can hear my neighbors talking in their house behind me in

their yard. when their dog goes out to pee, he goes pee, pee, pee. i think we're splitting hairs here. i think everything we're doing allows me to go to sleep at night, saying we're not ruining the d.r. requester's lives. trust me, i experience the same thing where we live. so i move to not take d.r. and accept the project as proposed. >> second. >> president melgar: commissioner moore, did you want to -- >> commissioner moore: i just wanted to tell the commission to move the entrance to the north facade is something we need to discuss. mr. paul, could you comment that? >> yeah, cognizant of previous

projects, we have directed architect to make that an identifiable obvious entrance to that guard unit. >> commissioner richards: so i accept your friendly amendment to put lighting and canopy so that it really reads like a garden entrance. >> commissioner moore: one question i would particularly have to commissioner richards who's planning to have a hot tub in his own home, i would still think that a kind of privacy screen, trellis, landscaping at the edge of the hot tub may kind of help break the impact of it. i'm not sure that's not necessarily an acoustic buffer, but it may be a psychological buffer to making it a little bit more softened. i personally don't particularly care for looking in other people's hot tubs, and perhaps that would help matters. i'm not sure what your thoughts are on that. >> just to be clear, miss wi

wilmer, you're allowed to build a fence up to 10 feet without a height permit. so within those parameters, i'm sure you can arrange some kind of privacy screening that will also have an acoustic benefit. >> commissioner moore: i would like to perhaps add that to your motion, commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: can you articulate it? >> commissioner moore: yeah, to make the fence visually and acoustically to make it visually complete and soften the vision as much as we can. >> commissioner richards: with no roofing, open to the sky still. >> commissioner moore: with no roofing. >> commissioner richards: and work with staff on that. i hope nobody d.r.s my hot tub. >> clerk: so commissioners, if we're going to add conditions of approval, you need toic at th that -- to take d.r. and

approve this project with conditions. >> commissioner richards: move to take d.r. and approve the project with conditions. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that amenable to the seconder, commissioner koppel? >> yes. >> clerk: very good. on that motion to take d.r. and approve the project with conditions to leave the hot tub open to the sky and -- >> commissioner richards: work with staff on making it more pronounced. >> clerk: very good. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 22 at 743 vermont street, discretionary review. >> good evening, president

melgar, commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review for building application 2017.10 2017.1017.2504 the building's historic resource category is c. the reason for the d.r. request, ryan patterson on behalf of meg mcknight is concerned with three main issues. first, the inappropriate building scale at the midblock open space, second, the loss of light and privacy, and third, a last-minute addition to the d.r. application asserts the existence of an unauthorized dwelling unit. to date, the department has received no letters in

opposition and five letters in support. recommendation, the department has rereviewed the project with respect to the residential design guidelines. to do so, we requested additional graphic information regarding the existing adjacent buildings be provided, and those are in your packet. after reviewing these, the department confirmed that the scale and massing of the proposed addition is comparable with the adjacent buildings, and the issued raised by the d.r. examiner are not -- requester are not significant or extraordinary. visual access to the midblock open space is retained by the same techniques of sculpting

the rear of the building. additionally, with respect to the assertion of the existing unauthorized dwelling unit, i'm going to read a little definition of ours. nonauthorized dwelling unit shall mean or one more rooms within a building that have been used without the benefit of a building permit as separate or distinct living or sleep space, independent from residential units on the same property. independent shall mean that one, the space has independent access and does not require entering the residential unit on the property, and two that there is no open visual connection to a residential unit on the property. based on the definition above, the department requires both of the following to establish that a space is an unauthorized dwelling unit. one, the physical attributes of independent access and lack of connection to a residential unit as described above.

and second, the proof of occupancy to determine if a space has been used as a separate and distinct living un. we did not find occupancy. the owner has provided a signed affidavit attesting that this is not an unauthorized dwelling unit, and with this, the stave finds that this meets our department standards for both the design guidelines and recommends commission not take the d.r. and approve the project as proposed, as it does not present any exceptional or extraordinary conditions. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> president melgar: okay. thank you, mr. winslow. we will now hear from the d.r. requester. >> thank you, president and commissioners. i'm meg mcknight. this is my partner, daniel. i've lived next door to the project for 12 years. i love potrero hill, and i plan

to stay there for a long time. i'm only here today because the sponsors have refused my many requests to discuss concerns of the project, beginning at the preapplication meeting in july 2017, all of the living space in my modest house is setup to enjoy the natural light, the blue sky, which is oriented towards the project site to the north. we'll look at the computer, please. here's a photo to illustrate. there are high -- this is the orientation in my little piece of blue sky, which is really important where i eat and work and gather with my family. the other sides, they're high retaining walls and houses on the other sides. as proposed, we'll see a three story wall high beyond or

house, covering up a major portion of that blue sky, the natural light, and the midspace -- the green space in the midblock. worst of all, the expansion of the third floor includes a 14-foot horizontal expansion. along with the flat roof that's proposed, it would create a three story rectangle immediately beside us. it would be a 90° box with solid walls extending above us and behind us. what are the sponsors getting for this based on the impact to the neighbors? they're basically expanding an existing master bedroom to an enormous 300 square feet. that's the master bedroom, and they're adding a master bath and a walk-in closet which will total 600 square feet -- 650 square feet, pardon me. no new bedrooms are being created. when we asked at the preapplication meet if the

project could be modified to a less impactful size and design, what they said was they were going to make it as big as they could to make money on the construction and the square footage. so sadly, after the preapplication meeting, and after i expressed many concerns, the sponsors did revise their plans, but they added expansions on two levels, not less. my concern is the third floor horizontal expansion be deleted and to limit the second floor expansion be limited to a reasonable amount. i thank you for your consideration. >> commissioners, pat pascovic. one storage room, this one has a full bath. a tub -- it's called a storage room. never seen one with a full bath. all the other ones have legal

habitable space. they extend all the way back there within 2 feet of the poppout. the existing bathroom, there is no permit to build it. there is no connection between the one that is required with this one with the bedroom and above. the m.l.s. calls it a bedroom down here. there's plans that are available on microfilm. the plans showed this. signed declaration, you guys don't take them, but you seem to self-certify there's nothing there. if you really believe there's not a unit there with a bathroom -- there's a termite permit that shows the full layout. it's clear there are three rooms. the rooms go all the way back to within 3 feet of the poppout. you can only have a two-story pop out, and that includes if you read the interpretation habitable, which i think they

are because they're part of a unit or potentially habitable, which they clearly are potentially habitable with a full plan. planning's now using bathroom because you can plug in a kitchen. you can't plug in a bathroom. so labeling a storage room a full bath is kind of insulting. and you guys approved this project. you' you're defactoing remaining a bathroom. >> commissioners, why is this significant? well, it means for project notice and ceqa reviews are incorrect, but maybe more importantly, section 136 c-25-b-2 on the screen. >> clerk: thank you, your time is up. >> thank you very much. happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you. do we have any public comment

in support of the d.r. requester? okay. no public comment. so we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jeff taw, and i am an attorney for the project sponsors. they are present, as well as the project sponsor architect to answer any questions. i just want to address some of the points made in this discretionary review. one of the points made was that this project affected the light and privacy of the d.r. requester. i'd like to show you some photographs so we have a better idea of what the issue is.

so if you take a look at where the red dot is, that is the project sponsor's current house, and the addition is going to go right here. this is the d.r. requester's home, and i think they're taking issue with the their view is going to get blocked once we build on this. and it's incorrect to say that this is a two story home. and as far as light, the way the properties are situated -- if you take a look at the shadow being casted, this is the project sponsor's home, and this is the d.r. requester's home. in fact the light puts the shadow over the project sponsor's home. so the addition on this level

isn't going to take away any light. and what i find interesting is...so what they're objecting to is the same addition that the d.r. requester -- this is their addition, which is the same addition that we're putting on our home, and this photograph is taken from the view of the neighbor to the -- to the south of the d.r. requester. i do want to address the lads minute unauthorized dwelling unit. it's a storage room, and it's indicated on the plans. my clients have -- she purchased the home in 2002.

john has lived there since 2007. it's a storage room, and it's connected to the garage. the only way to access this storage room is through the garage, and that is part of the residence. if you guys have any questions for the architect, he probably is better to ask that. other than that, we ask that you not take approval and approve the plan. >> president melgar: okay. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is terry pickering, and i'm the owner of the property. i would like to state we do not have an unauthorized dwelling unit because it's not independent. you have to enter the garage which contains our property. it is locked, it is kept secure. there is no direct access to that room from the street we

have property that is valuable should it be stolen. in order to access that room, you have to enter our home, and we consider the storage room our home because we have property stored there. additionally, the extension that we're proposing is similar to the extension my neighbor did several years ago and conforms to the neighborhood. thank you. >> president melgar: okay. thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. >> my name is william walters and i am the architect. may i speak in support of the project? >> clerk: you have one minute. >> thank you. as an architect on potrero hill, i had an office and home for 25 years and 30 years practicing on the hill.

i know all about this hill, and i know the composition and the -- how the houses are put. so when i was hired i knew how to do it from the start to get it passed. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. so with that, the hearing is now closed -- oh, project sponsor rebuttal. sorry. it's late. >> clerk: public comment in support. >> president melgar: i already called and nobody was here. >> clerk: okay. >> president melgar: yeah. come on up. rebutt. >> thank you, commissioners. ryan patterson for the d.r. requester, and happy valentine's day, right? what could be more romantic? >> commissioner richards: funny you. >> okay. so first off, independent access for an unauthorized dwelling unit does not mean that you lock the door on the dwelling unit, right? you can have independent access through the garage door, which

is what happens across the city. is it safe, maybe not, but that's what happens. if you look at the m.l.s. list, y you've got two different sales on this property, and this is undeniable. on top of that, you have a sworn declaration from the d.r. requester coming from the person that used to live there. on top of that, you've got the architect's plan stamped which shows a full bathroom coming off of those rooms. there's no question this is an unauthorized dwelling unit. maybe it happened before the current owners, but that doesn't change the status. this is significant again because of code section 136 c, and perhaps this skews the interpretation here, but it says very clearly if there is adequate ceiling height, ceiling clearance to provide an

occupiable floor from 10 feet from the rear building wall such that a useable space shall be created, that space shall be considered an occupiable floor even if it's not built out as an occupiable floor. what they did was simply count out correctly. this is @-grade bottom -- an at-grade from the rear of the pop out. you can't do a third floor pop out like that. nor is there a reason. it's just a massive, open bedroom. thank you very much. >> president melgar: okay. come on up. rebutt. >> thank you, commissioners. first of all, we still agree that it's not an unauthorized unit. they haven't established that. there's no evidence that it's ever been occupied, used as a separate dwelling unit or not. but even if it is, the plans don't call for removal of that unit. we're not doing anything to

that unit, so you're not remaining an unauthorized dwelling unit, even if it is. we don't think it is, so i think it's a last-minute attempt to delay this project any further. >> also, there is a mention there is a request for us to take into consideration light and space, and we did that. we did amend our plans to not move the building out to the south toward the neighbor, so we actually pulled back to maintain the same space that's there now to allow for light and space and air, and there are no new windows on that southern side of the building, either so we actually did make an amendment to our plans. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. okay. with that, hearing is now

closed. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i was -- they had me with the removal of the unauthorized dwelling unit. i was going to delve into that, but then, it all fell apart in my head. that's where i'm at with that. >> president melgar: commissioner koppel? >> vice president koppel: this is not as extraordinary as we see on a regular basis, so i'm okay with it. >> commissioner richards: second. >> vice president koppel: i'd like to make a motion to not take d.r. and approve as proposed. >> commissioner richards: second. >> president melgar: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have a question for mr. winslow. a-2, introducing a new deck on the third floor property line, i saw that somewhat unusual. that is, i think, asking for something that is hard to

understand. >> the last word. >> >> commissioner moore: that is hard to understand. >> we also saw that, and it raised a red flag. here's what we thought of it. it is deminimous. it is a step out balcony against a neighbor who also did not file any kind of complaint or d.r. while we typically would have had a second look at that and said take it out, we didn't have an issue with it. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. >> president melgar: okay.

happy valentine's day, fellow commissioners. we're adjourned. >> >> my name is sofy constantineo and a documentary film maker and cinema togfer, producer and director.

it is inevable you want your movie to get out and realize yoi need to be a commune tee organizer to get people together to see the story you will tell [inaudible] pretty rich and interesting. in what we do as film makers is try to tell the best story possible so i think that is where i [inaudible] learn everything. lighting and cinematography. i got jobs of stage manger at some place and projectionist. i kind of mixed and matched as i went and kept refining i feel like it isn't just about making things that are beautiful and appealing and rich and [inaudible] the way that the films [inaudible] it has to tell a story. >> my name is sumell [inaudible] free lance multimedia produce. my project is [inaudible] mostly oof

street photographry with a few portraits. i'm going arounds san francisco and capturing the [inaudible] as we started to do this project i was reading about the decline of african american population in san francisco and i wondered where the remaining population was and what they were doing and how life was for them. >> i wasn't very inspired by school, i wasn't very inspired by continuing to read and write and go to class. i watched a lot of movies and saw a lot of [inaudible] i said that is what i want to do. i had this very feminist [inaudible] and i felt like there was not enough of a womans vision on the stuff that we see, the movies that we make and the beginning of the [inaudible] the way we look at

women and the roles women take in the stories being tolds. they felt [inaudible] they did want feel complex. i was like, i have a different frame i like to see the world shaped by. >> my grandsmother was a teacher and taught special education for 40 years in los angeles and when i was growing up she inspired me to record everything. we recorded our conversations, we recorded the [inaudible] we recorded everything to cassette players. learning multimedia skills, from the other crossover employment opportunities for young people. someone who grew up in la rks san francisco feels like a small town. i lived in western addition and i was

looking for someone to cut my hair, i found [inaudible] he seemed like a very interesting guy and grew up in the neighborhood and had a lot to say about something that was foreign to me. that local perspective and so important to me because i think as someone who isn't from here, knowing that history allows me to be more engaging in the community i live in and want the same for others. i want people to move into a new neighborhood to know who was there before and businesses and what cultural and [inaudible] shape what we see today. >> my guiding principles have been, if you stick to something long enough and know what it is and go for it you will get there. [inaudible] where i want to go, what i want to do and it is totally possible so, the impossible is

you know, is not something to listen to.

[gavel]. >> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, february 11, 2019. i am the chair of the committee, aaron peskin. joined to my right by vice chair supervisor ahsha safai and to my left by committee member matt haney. our clerk is miss erica major. miss major, could you please give us any announcements and then please call the first item. >> clerk: yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk.

items acted on today will appear on the february 26, 2019 board of supervisors agenda. item one is a resolution to designate theodore roosevelt middle school, 460 arguello boulevard as a landmark under article 10. >> chair peskin: thank you. i went through the pending items of this committee and realized there were a few landmark nominations that came from the hez torque preservation commission that had not been scheduled for a hearing before this committee. one of them, 22 beaver street, was before this committee and is actually before the broard f supervisors tomorrow on its second and final reading. two of them were before us today. they were part of the historic

preservation's mandated work program back in 2016 when christopher plank and his partner, ms. graves, prepared the case reports for these two items. they were actually introduced to the board of supervisors in december 2017 and have languished before this committee along with 48 other items that i am going to try to run through this committee if the sponsoring supervisors want to hear them as quickly as possible to get rid of our backlog. the first of those, the committee clerk, miss major just read, which is the landmark designation for 460 arguello as san franciscans call it, or arguello, as it should be pronounced, also known as theodore roosevelt middle school. with that, i would like to ask the planning department, who brought this before the historic preservation commission, which recommended

it to us unanimously well over a year ago to present. i believe that miss shannon ferguson, who this committee has heard from on numerous occasions will make the presentation and mr. tim frye, who is the senior staff to the historic preservation commission, is available to staff. ms. ferguson, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor. my name is shannon ferguson, and i'm here to present two community sponsored landmark designations. the first is theodore roosevelt middle school. >> chair peskin: lead me interrupt you. miss clerk, could you please read item number two. >> clerk: item 2 is an item

designated sunshine school a landmark and affirming appropriate findings. >> chair peskin: miss ferguson, they both hail from the same era, the progressive era of franklin delano roosevelt. maybe we can have the staff presentation and hear about the case reports for both items. obviously both of them are san francisco unified school district properties. i know the school district is here today, and of course there are other sfusd properties that benefit from landmark status, including but not limited to mission high. i believe there are others in addition to that. so feel free to present on both of them. >> yes. thank you. so both designations for theodore roosevelt middle school and sunshine school were community sponsored landmark

designations. the landmark designations reports were prepared by plank historic preservation coordinating by donna graves with coordination provided by san francisco heritage and funding provided by the historic preservation fund committee. the h.p.c. initiated designation on october 18, 2017, and unanimously recommended landmark designation on december 6, 2017. the proposed designations recognized san francisco's progressive era and underrepresented communities and histories. the first designation is roosevelt middle school, and it's located at 460 arguello boulevard. it was constructed in 1930 and it's architecturally significant as san francisco's only dutch expressionist style building. it has high artistic values, and it also contains three new deal murals. these murals were three important artworks parented by

local -- painted by local artists, and they were employed by the public works art project, which was a new deal program. some of the murals include education by george wilson walker and harvest by nelson poole. also note the really beautiful brick awowork with the diaper pattern on the tower. the second landmark decision nation is the sun -- designation is the sunshine school. it was constructed 1937. it's significant for its association with events. it was the first public school specifically designed for children with disabilities built west of the rockies, and it was constructed using funds from the public works administration. it's also very architecturally significant. it embodies the characteristics of the spanish colonial revival style and it has colonial and

moorish being sets. it exhibits high artistic values in its ingenius floor plans which was to combine two specialized schools for chronically ill students and disabled students into one campus. the building also had a therapeutic pool for the children. there is no known public or neighborhood opposition to the designation of these three schools. staff has presented to the building and grounds committee of the san francisco school board about the landmark designation process. staff has presented three times. on october 23, 2017, march 3, 2018, and again on september 28, 2015.

our last correspondence was a letter dated december 5, 2017 saying they are not prepared to support designation for a landmark presentation at that time. the department believes the buildings meet the established eligibility requirements and landmark status is warranted. designation of the roosevelt middle school and sunshine school also meet the historic preservation commission's desire to designate underrepresented neighborhood property types. the h.p.c. recommended decision nation of both properties. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questio questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss ferguson. i have some questions, and my colleagues might, but i believe we might ask -- miss viva mogue is here on behalf of the san francisco unified school

district and as the owner of those properties, i wanted to offer her or any representative of the school district tell the committee what the school district's position is at this time. obviously, we are aware of the 2017 and 2018 letters that are part of the file as well as the e-mail communication that is part of the file. miss mogue, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin and land use committee members. we will have an additional representative if you have any further technical questions from our chief facilities officer? but as of right now, we did submit a letter dated in march 2018 that the board of education is not supportive of moving forward with any landmark designation at this time? and we are hoping to request a one-week continuance to discuss with our new board -- we actually have four new board of

education members, and we want to provide them some background before this gets moved forward, and we also have our chief facilities officer if you have any additional questions. >> chair peskin: thank you. and we also will want to hear from miss kamala naughton, who we hold in high esteem. my understanding is the h.p.c. forwarded three landmark designations to this body, and that one of them, washington, was the subject of controversy with regard to certain murals. and my understanding -- and maybe my now colleague on my panel who was a member of the school district might be able to elaborate. but my understanding is that all three of them got conflated with the controversy at wash, and that actually, as i understand it, i would watch the tapes of that meeting over

a year ago, except for that i can't find your school board meetings on-line. but at any rate, my understanding is -- no, they don't exist. >> they do exist. >> chair peskin: they do? >> yes. i can send that link to you. >> chair peskin: okay. i was not able to find them. but my understanding -- and supervisor haney can elucidate for this panel what it was. my understanding all three landmark designations was really directed at one, which is not before this panel, and i have no intention as chair to bring before the land use committee of the board of supervisors. but with that, miss kamala naughton as the facilities manager, replacing mr. golden, would like to address the land use committee, the floor is

yours. >> supervisors, kamala naughton representing sfusd. supervisors, i was not at that particular meeting. my understanding as the board's direction has been passed onto me is yes, there were considerable concern own the murals at george washington, but also the significant cost of renovation at these sites if designation should go forward. i'm going to remain agnostic on those points, but i think just echoing miss mogue's point in that the board was unequivocal in its opposition for the motion, now, we have a new board and we would like to reengage them and see if they would like to understand the topic in more depth, if they have any feedback that they'd like to share, it's as simple as that. there's not a significant content objection to the work that's been done by the

preservation staff. i think these are acknowledged resources within the district, and you know, i -- i don't think there are questions per se about the legitimacy over the future of these assets, but more of a procedural etiquette. >> chair peskin: so you are aware that the state law relative to our -- as the city and county of san francisco designate -- designation should this panel and should the full board designation, is mostly honorific. insofar as the school district is a subdivision of the state of california, it can, and i believe many times in the past i believe as to other locally

designated landmarks in sfusd's jurisdiction has chosen not to come before the land use board, not request c.r.s., although it would be a nice thing for your agency to do. but mostly, this is honorific with certain exceptions when they do not concern educational purposes. >> yes, and i am aware of that. >> chair peskin: and you're also aware in the case of theodore roosevelt, the facilities have been upgraded and there are no facility improvements that would compromise the historic fabric of the building that are contemplated. >> i am aware that there is relatively recent work within the kind of capital life ticyc of the building that was conducted at roosevelt. i'm not certain that all the entire facility was captured

top to bottom and therefore that there might not be some structural or mechanical issue in the future, so i'm not familiar enough with this particular asset to know if it merits the fact that it's completely off the table for the near future. something north of $30 million, i don't think something is anticipated in the future for roosevelt. >> chair peskin: okay. thank you. anything else you would like to add? >> no, thank you, supervisor. >> chair peskin: thank you. so we have -- i do have questions for the planning department, but we have a number of speakers, so i thought we'd start with professor robert turney, who is a renowned historyian, who is

here today in his capacity as a member of the historic preservation fund committee. colleagues, if you do not know about that, that is actually part of the city and county of san francisco, and many years ago was given some $2 million out of a legal settlement that they have spent on doing historic surveys and other good historic preservation work in the city and county of san francisco through -- under oe -- the office of economic and workforce development. professor turney, thank you for coming. >> good afternoon. thank you, supervisors. >> chair peskin: and by the way, just so you know, insofar as you're testifying on two items, you have four minutes. >> thank you. the historic preservation fund committee several years ago set out a priority list of things that we wanted to accomplish before the $2 million was all spent. among those was a historic context statement for the great depression new deal era in san

francisco, and that has been completed. it's been reviewed by the historic preservation commission. and as one part of that larger project, we were especially interested in seeing landmark nominations for the three schools that you mentioned. roosevelt school because of its architecture and its new deal murals. george washington as a new deal funded project in terms of both the building and the murals. and sunshine school both because it was a new deal funded school and because it was especial

1930's in almost every part of the united states where the children of the unemployed were unable -- >> chair peskin: thank you, professor. as always, i always enjoy hearing from you. >> thank you. >> chair peskin: our next speaker -- and we may have questions for you, so if you would, please stick around. our next public commenter is mike bueller from san francisco

heritage. mr. bueller, not to exceed four minutes on the two items. >> good afternoon, committee members of the mike bueller with san francisco heritage. i don't have much to add regarding the significance of the believe. we believe that was manifest. san francisco heritage in 2016 received the grant referenced by professor turney to complete both the new deal context study. in conjunction with that, we received a grant to prepare the three-school city landmark nominations, knowing that these three school buildings are among the most significant school buildings in the district and among the most significant buildings associated with the new deal era. as referenced earlier, both were unanimously endorsed by the historic preservation commission. the nominations themselves are of the highest caliber. i believe each is over 100 pages in length and in our view will serve as valuable information signal documents to

the district as they contemplate future improvements to their properties. they list what is significant about the school buildings so that future planning efforts can ensure that those futures are protected if at all possible. one important benefit of official designation that is not currently available to the district is that listing will enable the district to apply the state historical building code, which if you're not familiar is a more flexibility alternative to the uniform building code that often times results in a cost savings alternative to the u.b.c. thank you for bringing those nominations forward and i'm happy to answer any questions, as well. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. bueller. the next speaker card i have is from richard rothman.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is richard rothman. i'm a richmond district resident, and i want to -- roosevelt, you know, roosevelt was designed by timothy fluger, and that he was unusual in that he was a mission boy. he grew up in the mission. he did not go to formally architect school, he was a draftsman. he's probably one of our most prominent architects in the city, and i think it would be a great tribute to honor him in the city in naming this as a city landmark. and as it's said before, the school district is a state agency, so really, they can do -- they don't need to follow the san francisco building codes or follow the landmark status, so it's just an honor

of a recognition. and i think would be a great honor to -- for his tribute to make this a city landmark. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. rothman. and as the previous speaker said, there is actually a benefit to the school district which is this designation can actually allow the sfusd to avail themselves of the state historic building code instead of the uniform building code of the state of california. both of these case reports -- and colleagues, i don't know if you've read them carefully because there's a lot of pages in them -- were prepared by christopher verplank and donna graves. and mr. verplank is here. i have to tell you, i enjoyed reading both of these case reports this weekend. mr. verplank, the floor is yours. >> greetings, supervisors. my name is christopher

verplank. i am a resident of miraloma mark, and a parent of a student next year. i believe the architectural and artistic significance as well as historical is beyond question. what really strikes me about these two schools is they're both built during a can-do era long before most americans had been trained to hate their governments. the new deal and schools in particular were about the government helping to improve people's lives, to providing work to the unemployed, modern educational infrastructure to san francisco school children as well as public art for all of its citizens to enjoy. in our contemperary -- and that everyone deserves access to high quality infrastructure. >> chaes