>> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission hearing for wednesday, may 6, 2020. before we begin i would like to enter the following announcement. on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. due to the health emergency to protect the staff and members of the public the commission chambers and city hall are closed.

the mayor and governor issued suspension of select laws to policy bodies making it possible to hold the hearings remotely. on april 30, 2020, the commission received its second authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely. the authorization directs the commission to prioritize consideration of action items pertaining to infrastructure housing and small business. sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live and we will receive public comment for each agenda item today. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the toll-free number across the bottom of the screen. comments or opportunities to speak are available by calling 888-204-5984 using access code

350-1008 and pressing pound and pound again. when you are connected, you dial one and zero when the q&a period opens, and you will be allowed to submit your testimony. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. i will announce when your time is up and direct my staff to take the next person in the queue to speak. speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television or computer. at this time i would like to take roll. president hyland. >> here. >> vice president matsuda. >> here. >> commissioner black. >> here. >> foley. >> here.

>> commissioner johns. >> here. >> commissioner pearlman. >> here. >> commissioner so. >> here. >> very good. commissioners, first on your agenda is general public comment. members of the comment may address the commission within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to agenda items that will be afforded in the meeting when that item is reached. you may address up to three minutes. i will ask members of the public at this time to call in to the 800 number. if we could take public comment and if there are any members of the public in the queue, you need to press one and zero. >> do we have anyone on the

phone line? >> you have one question remai remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners, san francisco land use coalition. i have a question for the commission. before we were struck with this covid-19, the planning department had acquired two fds to survey the san francisco streets for historic resources. they were to complete that survey. my question is if the preservation commission could follow up and maybe you already have the answer, where we are with that survey, and whether or

not the impact from the budget shortfall and whatever we are experiencing right now is actually going to impact the completion of that survey. thank you. >> very good, there are no additional members of the public. we will move to department matters. item one. director's announcements. >> commissioners, good afternoon. i wanted to touch on one thing that was touched on during the general public comment to give you a preview about the budget. certainly, the crisis we are facing has had implications both to the city budget and to our budget. we don't know the details yet. we will likely be back before

you talking about next year's budget when we have a better sense of where the budget is heading. city general fund budget is down hundreds of millions of dollars because of th sales tax. there is a reduction in permit revenues. we think we can absorb that we are looking to the implications. the surveys were in the budget funded by the ad back and historic preservation fund. we were ramping up hiring. we hadn't fully staffed those positions. there could be some timing with hiring freezes. the city is not allowing hiring at this point. we hope to ramp that up when we get back to the office. there could be some delay in hiring because of this crisis. we will definitely be back

before you to talk about next year's budget. >> your time is up. >> that is all i have. >> okay. if there are no questions. we can move to item 2. i will make mention in regard to the planning commission. they have successfully held four remote hearings. they have been fairly smooth given the issues associated with remote hearings. last week they considered 701 harrison, and part of the conditions or they amended the conditions of approval directing

that the project sponsor work with neighborhood organizations to incorporate the cultural heritage district that project is add adjacent to into the programming of the development. i have no other comments relating to the planning commission. i don't know if there are additional staff reports or announcements. seeing none, we will move to item 3. president's report announcements. >> no report or announcement today. >> very good. item 4. consideration of adoption. draft minutes for the arc february 5, 2020 hearing and draft minutes for the regular hearing april 15, 2020 as were amended and e-mail correcting or adding additional speakers that were left off were e-mailed to each of you this morning as well as a member of the public who

made that note. >> we will take public comment on our arc and h.p.c. minutes? >> we should. members of the public to address the commission in regard to the minutes, please call the 800 number, press pound and pound and 1 and zero to enter the queue. public comment please. >> do we have anyone in the queue, j on. sie? >> we don't have any. >> very good, commissioners the matter is before you. >> any comments? >> commissioner johns. >> i move the minutes as amended

be approved. >> second. >> i did have one question or comment. on item 11:0 11 at a we listed e public speakers for legacy business. they were not able to participate. do we need to strike them or put an asterisk by their name? do you have an opinion on that? >> are you suggesting? >> i would suggest perhaps we just strike their names. they were on the line but they weren't able to speak so we weren't able to have their

participation. do you have a recommendation? >> well, actually, josie can you recall if the members of the public identified on the minutes actually spoke or not? >> i suggest we strike their names. they weren't able to speak. >> they were on the delayed broadcast. >> there were a couple of speakers, but they didn't provide names. >> that was my recollection as well. i believe the minutes as issued accurately reflect how we received public comment. what i can do, commissioner hyland, is review the video again and to confirm whether or not we did receive. if i recall we were able to receive a couple of comments and

then we had technical difficulties. >> i just know that ed beckley is on top of the list and was not able. i would like to provide them an opportunity to address us when we can in the near future. however you want to handle the minutes to recognize the accuracy. >> we will certainly do that. i believe we extended an invitation to have those business owners and/or interested parties comment today during the legacy business update. we will certainly review those and confirm actual speakers. >> any other comments? i don't see any. >> i did hear a motion and second to adopt minutes as amended. commissioner black.

>> aye. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> commissioner president hyland. >> yes. >> that passes unanimously 7-0. that places us on item 5. commission comments and questions. >> any comments or questions, commissioners? >> i don't see any. >> seeing none we will move to item 6. for the certified local government program annual report. is staff prepared to present?

>> yes. >> good afternoon. this is marcell, department staff. i coordinated the preparation of the clg annual report linked through the agenda with full details. this is a requirement of the office of historic preservation to produce a report on your undertaking during the state fiscal year. that reflects october 2016 through september 2019. speaking with the last several years we had placed this on your calendar for consideration in lieu of a formal presentation. if you have questions about information or details included, please let me know. otherwise, i will sign off for questions.

>> very good. commissioners, shall we take public comment first? the clg agenda item. >> go to public comment. >> do we have anybody on the line? >> no, we don't. >> commissioner hyland. what we have been doing also is recognizing the delay in the broadcast is allowing to have public comment remain open for items and if someone does call in that she alerts us and we can

take that public comment. if members of the public want to make comment, please call the 800 number and press 1 and 0 to get in the queue. we can pause to provide that person the opportunity to submit testimony. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i wanted to address some of the comments we got in e-mail over the last couple of days about the item about landmark trees that was not included in the report. i don't know enough about it but i do want to make sure that i know there was public concern about this item until some of those elements were there. i don't know who can speak to that, maybe marcell. >> yes, this is marcell. we can make edits for new

landmark trees for this reporting period. unfortunately, that may have missed our data collection at this point. we will research any new land mark trees from that period and add. >> we do have a landmark tree that we -- our commission approved. i don't remember the specific action, but can we add that to the report before it is publis published? is it too late? >> no, this is marcell. it is not too late. i will research along with other staff of the date and the details on the landmark tree and add that before the final version to the state office of historic preservation. >> i have one edit. on page 7, the commission terms

and dates it looked like an odd date for keith black. i believe the term ends 12/31/2022. in the report it was march of 2023. just a typo. >> we will update the typo. thank you. >> then commissioner johns. >> i believe the tree is on the willard north street. >> we need to take action or is this just review and comment? >> this is just an informational presentation to update you on the report, is that right,

marcell? >> that's correct. >> no formal action needed. >> if there are no public comments, we will move on. >> commissioners that places us under consideration of items proposed for continuance. you have one item number 7 for case 2020-00005 2:00 p.m. ca for the standard environmental requirements code amendments. you heard this april 15th. it is proposed to continue to july 15th of 2020. can we open up the public comment and take any callers. is there anyone in the queue? >> no. >> okay. the matter is before you.

>> they are just starting to come in. >> go ahead and let's receive them. >> you have three questions remaining. >> this is catherine howard. i want to thank you for amending the minutes. i strongly support the continuance of this item until july or until such time as people can meet in person, learn more about this extremely important change and weigh in on it. thank you very much. please continue this to july at least. >> you have two questions rema remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

ozzie again. i want to echo the request and i want to go one step further and request that you would put this item on hold indefinitely. in light of what we are faced with, the economical problem from the covid-19 crisis and companies are shedding people and people are leaving san francisco. in light of these monumental changes far worse than an earthquake that could have hit california, we need to stop and wait to see the impact. in fact, it behooves us to have the planning department issuing an impact analysis coming from the calamity as covid-19 as we know it before we start looking at any other program that attempts to change or streamline

already existing programs. the previous plannings do not hold any more. i encourage you to continue the item and continue this indefinitely. i am in support of the continuance and want to ask it to be continued indefinitely. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> this is sonya trout from nb law in support of the standard environmental requirements and against the continuance. i think this is a good program and great that plans is working on it. i think the fact that covid-19 is going on is an argument forgetting this together because it will save staff time, which makes the department more

efficient, and it saves time and effort for people trying to build housing. as it becomes more difficult potentially to borrow money and more expensive to borrow money to build housing, the city needs to figure out how the city conchange the policies -- can change the policies. new housing is an income stream. we keep 40% of the property taxes we collect. as we are losing income streams this is becoming more important to build housing so our wonderful public services and servants can continu continue te employed and this can be offered to the residents. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> okay. commissioners, any comments or maybe a motion for continuance

of this item? >> i move we continue this matter until july 15th. >> second. >> to speak to the caller's comments, i believe we are required to set a specific date for the continuance. i would support the july 15th date that has been selected. >> for clarity, you could continue this indefinitely if you chose to do so. it would trigger new notification. >> i don't think that is a good idea at all. >> very good. then seeing no other comments there is a motion seconded to continue this matter as proposed to july 15, 2020. on that motion, commissioner black. >> yes.

>> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> commissioner president hyland. >> yes. >> that passes unanimously 7-0. placing under the regular calendar. 2018 higher 009197coa at 1772 vallejo. certificate of appropriate necessary for staff to present. >> good afternoon, commissioners. shannon ferguson department staff. this is a request for certificate of appropriate necessary for 1772 vallejo street. i am going to share my screen. can everyone see that?

>> we can. >> the property at 1772 vallejo street is known as the burhouse. it was constructed 188 as a single family -- 1878 and was designed in the style as a wedding present for his son. the property is designated as landmark 31 under article 10 of the planning code. it is listed on the national register of historic places. the proposed project is a three story vertical addition at the rear elevation of the main house. the first two stories of the addition will extend nearly the full width of the elevation.

third story will extend approximately half the width of elevation and retaining the view at the sides of the house and bay window at the second story and the addition will be notched at the third story to retain the additional window at the second floor. wood railings will be on the third and fourth stories. plaster at the first story and wood siding upper. three arch windows at all level of the addition. windows will be wood and have a plane trim profile. architectural review committee reviewed the proposed project january 15, 2020. the sponsor has incorporated arc comments and it is supported by staff. department received two letters in opposition from adjacent

neighbors. these have been forwarded to the commission. the proposed project is appropriate and consistent with article 10 and complies with the secretary's standards. addition is at the rear of the main house and minly visible from the street. it will remove a substantial portion of the rear elevation. the first and second stories have been previously altered. this removes one historic window and not to retain the second historic window. there is visibility of the coining, bay window and the roof. the massing and sides and scale is compatible with the house. arch windows with the simple trim and siding proposed is differentiated yet compatible with the sides. the architectural features of

house and addition is constructed in a manner to be removed in the future. staff recommends approval. this concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions. the architects or project sponsor team also has a presentation and i will hand it over to them. >> thanks, shannon. is five minutes sufficient for the sponsor's presentation? >> that is a little tight. >> see what you can do. >> i am going to start.

good afternoon. i am michael, preservation architect for the project. they have been stewarts of the home and have planned changes to the master, kitchen and den to be appropriate for this property. both themselves or any future owners. few changes would be needed. the house has gone through a few changes historically. it is an intact property to speak for its time. the garden setting for the side of the home is an example of a property not subdivided. previous and future developments changed the environment and the property itself has retained integrity of setting. slide three is the current rear façade built in the 1990s. slide four shows the façade prior to the 1990s addition.

many elements were altered. our changes are focused at the rear of the building previously altered areas. interior of the house is original and the changes are focused on previously altered areas at the rear of the house. are we okay as far as changing slides? >> we are on elements to be removed. >> so those are going to remove previously remodeled elements to clean up those elements. slide six the diagram shows the existing condition at the rear area of the building. it shows looking south. slide 7 shows our proposal for a modest addition. there is very little change

being perceived in those two comparative slides. slide 8. the proposed removal of noncontributing changes from the 1990s. many primary features will note be altered. the remains three primary façades are original. slide 9. the design, scale and character of the project down to the essential form and internal functional areas. this honing involved the input of planning staff and arc guidance. is that proposed or demolition elevation. >> either one. >> i am hoping to show the proposed. those were flipped. we are talking about the proposal and what it encompasses. the addition is simply styled

from the ornate architecture to avoid blocking the bay window and uses minimal ow min other m. it is a v groove siding. on the west side is visual access to the original rear window. windows are similar in shape but limit trim and ornaments to avoid duplication. on the upper decks is simple. that ends my presentation. jeremy. >> thank you, mike. this is jeremy paul speaking on behalf of the miran family. they are living abroad for a year. the three kids enjoyed living in the house since 2012 and hope to

live in it for many, many more years to come. the changes that are being proposed will fold in with the millwork that we are proposing including removing the interior chimney. addition of walls and strengthening. painting the wood siding and replacing the roof. they are anxious to work on this as we have been planning this project for quite some time. what we are looking to do here as we move forward through these slides, shannon, let's see. i am 30 seconds behind, i suppose. we have been examining the possible impacts this will have on the adjacent properties to be as sensitive as possible.

going to slide 10, you can see the existing conditions of the rear building as viewed from the golf street properties. you can see the large building at 1750 vallejo provides an obstruction to light fro from te east. the next slide shows us the image as it will be viewed from the golf street properties. next slide. from a different angle. you can see in slide 12 the existing and proposed photo. there is a green x identifying where the balcony is at present. that is really the main entry point for the family into the house. this remodel will remove that balcony. there will no longer be the --

that will not be the busy entrance to the house for the kids and family. they will enter on the ground floor. >> that is the time. commissioners may have additional questions for you. >> any comments, commissioners? >> any questions for the project sponsor before we take public comment? >> let's go to public comment.

>> again, if you wish to speak, please press one and zero. >> you have one question remai remaining. >> hi. am i being heard? >> you are, thank you. >> hello. i am daniel and i am afraid i am playing catchup. i am a neighbor of this property. i say catchup because the project has been in the works over three years. i only found out about it in late march. really nobody knows the back of that mansion the way i do. my living room looks right at the back, and we have been here

-- well my grandmother was here in 1969 when she bought the house i am living in from the estate of the bursisters. after she died in 1992, i moved in. i can tell you how original the structure is. it is minimally touched. the changes to the back have been very small. a couple of windows on the main floor that the deck would be exterior. it is pretty much it. the envelope of the entire structure is unchanged and the materials are original. the siding is the same as well. you can get a sense of how this mansion had at the crest of this vallejo street slope. there has beene been the encroa.

we still have the allen park right on the next block down here. the report seems to affirm a lot of the fact this is an original structure. ultimately, i don't understand how it would be appropriate to change this landmark building so significantly. the proposal was to go to maximum allowable for the envelope of the structure, that it would be a change of three stories. three story tall addition. whether the coins is add tained or additions are notched, it will engulf the back and change the proportions and especially

the bay window. it is agreed this is remove -- i disagree this is removable. the fact it is not obvious from the front. they thought the landmark status would protect it. a former official from the historical society concur this is is not appropriate. under other circumstances i would invite you over to the proportions that are particular to this place built by a forker mays -- former mayor. i would ask for a delay to reconsider this massive addition. >> that is your time. >> you are zero questions remaining. >> very good. the matter is now before you, commissioners. >> commissioner black. do you have a question or comment? >> yes, i have a question for staff. there were some public letters

sent in addressing the mills state. i was hoping you might shed light on that whether or not this house is in compliance with the mills act contract and how that might affect or decision making today. >> shannon ferguson, department staff. yes, the property owner is in compliance with the mills act contract. they have been sending in their required monitoring on an annual basis and have included the work that they have been completing according to their contract. they have delayed the work on the house in hopes they could

have this project approved and then complete the seismic work. in other scopes of work for the mills ability contract, they are in compliance. >> commissioner pearlman. >> thank you very much. i don't disagree very much with the caller who just called in. i have a number of concerns, and i am going to be requesting we continue this to look at some of these concerns. i will quickly go through them. from the arc, we commented about the cornice at the addition that it was unsubstantial and undefined and that the metal railing at the roof was incompatible. if i look at these drawings, there is almost no difference.

the cornice is undefined. there is no detail of it, and all they did was change the wording from metal to wood, but it is a wood ballister. a wood balister would be different than two thin lines. when i think about what we looked at on the house that is a significant landmark as well, the project sponsor provided an enormous amount of detail. we commented on it, they came back with details in 3-d views of those particular details so this feels very thin. there is not enough for us to judge this. i am very curious about the deck on the roof of the third floor of the addition. we look at the existing condition. there is a fire escape that obviously was not original to

the house, of course, but by providing the fourth floor deck two things are happening. one, you have to have the stair out of the window in the roof to get to the deck, which provides a railing that is not too dissimilar to the location from a fire escape. then especially with wood ballisters you can look at 3.8, the north elevation proposed, the railing in the drawing form already blocks the cornice, the very ornate cornice, which from the ground with even more block it. you know, if it were wood balisters, it would be almost impossible to see the beautiful cornness from the ground --

cornnis from the ground. it is nice to have the view from the outside they have windows to see the same view. i would advocate that the fourth floor or roof of the third floor deck, if we eliminate that and eliminated the railing, that would be a very positive change on this. i do have a concern as the caller did about the amount that is being removed. it seems like it is fairly substantial. i don't know if any of the original material is going to be retained. on projects i have worked on where we have removed historic fabric of the building we had to retain it on site to honor the secretary's standard 10 so ifnition were changed that

material would be would be available. i don't know what is happening there. hold on. just a comment. i know we looked at this at the arc. the back of the house the original back of the house was not symmetrical as witnessed by one day on the east side and no other days. what we are looking at are the banks of three arched windows on the first and second floor completely symmetrical appropriate for the street view. the rear was much less formal because it had kitchens and other, you know, things on the back that were not the formal rooms of the house. again, you know, i didn't really bring this up in the arc, but i do think it seems odd to me that this has been compatible with

what the original is or was. with that, you know, i would like to propose that we continue this. of course, i will wait until any of the other commissioners have commented. >> thank you, commissioner pearlman. if i could briefly respond. i don't remember who is on the arc with us. it was commissioner black. i agree with you on the railings, commissioner pearlman, and i think it would be good to see a little more detail to understand what the railings are and how the detailing specifically on the third floor

roof deck as it goes up into the new door. there is also not much detail. is that a door or window? those are two things that i would like to see some more information around. i do think that the cornnis line they did piece it up a little bit. maybe it needs to be detailed a little bit better. i am comforttible with the way the cornnis reads and comfortable with the size of the addition and the scale and the symmetry doesn't concern me. it is in the rear and landmarks don't necessarily have to be

frozen in time. this is an addition on the rear of the building, which has maxed it out. it has maxed out the back of the building. i think they have refined the scale of it or the details of the masking. >> commissioner pearlman do you want to respond? >> yes, i was wondering about the comment not having the fourth floor roof deck. i think by eliminating that guardrail and the access from the window or door would actually allow the top of the building to be seen the way it was originally built and the way it has been. obviously, a fire escape is there as a safety reason, but you don't have that any more

because there is no way to get off the roof of the third floor addition. i agree with you about the size. that is fine. if you pulled it in a foot or two it would make no difference. i do really feel that the design of the guard rail even at the second floor because that is in front of the bay window as well as the design of the cornnis other than just basically all that is there are two lines. a detail, some other ways to understand the design of very prominent elements on this relative to the house. the cornice of the main house, the house itself is extremely ornate. i think it is important for the commission to see in detail both the wood guardrail and the

cornnis detail. >> ms. ferguson do you want to respond? >> yes, i wanted to remind commissioners that the property owners have an easement over the neighboring property, and when we were at arc, they did write a letter for you in response to the roof deck at the fourth floor. this would allow them to have that view. >> have access to it? >> can i pop in here? first of all, you can look out the window to see the view from the top floor. there are flour large windows there. they certainly can see the view. i actually don't think a view

easement is legal in the planning code. i can leave the city attorney to comment on that, but i don't believe. that is an agreement between neighbors so that when something is built in the view they can prevent a neighbor from building in the view. i don't think it has any bearing on our judgment of this additi addition. >> mr. johns lynn did you want to pop in? >> yes, one, i agree with commissioner pearlman's assessment in terms of the relationship of the easement to the code. i think the question of visibility of the cornnis is one that is worthy of discussion because as it is, it is visible from maybe two places. the upper windows of the taller

adjacent neighbor and perhaps one of the nearby roof decks. otherwise, if the only change that is going to happen was the removal of that rail, the cornnis wouldn't be any more visible but for those two locations. >> commissioner black. >> i went to the site, and i spent some time driving around. i did not go on the property nor any of the adjacent properties. i know there was some concern about the size and mass of the addition. it is really other than from private property, it is minimally visible from one location at the front of the house. it would be able to see the back

corner. i concur that i think the size and mass is acceptable. from an architectural standpoint i agree with my colleague jonathan about preserving the visibility of the cornnis. i agree completely on the design of the railing, especially the side railing coming down from the window on the roof. it is just a goofy little railing that curves down. the other thing i was thinking about is what this is going to look like in three dimensions. it is a really big mass that is coming out. i am okay with the size of the mass, but it really reinforces the symmetry on it.

i agree with my colleague aaron's comments or maybe jonathan. i think it is just too symmetrical, it eliminates the charm that was there, even though remodeled the a symmetry on the rear of the house. i agree the cornnis on the addition shouldn' is going to by big blocky mess coming out. >> any other commissioners with comments? >> if there aren't additional public comment, we ended the q&a portion of this item because there did not appear to be

public commenters. there is an individual that would like to submit public testimony. if we could open it up again and get into q&a so members of the public can submit testimony, you will need to hit one and zero to get to the queue. >> you have one question remai remaining. >> thank you. this is rich. i have tried four times to get into the queue. i am preservations as well and neighbor. i would like to say i am the one that submitted the power present presentation i hope all commissioners received regarding this. what i would like to say is with

the elevations to the fashionsive change. this is an ordinary house i wouldn't be on this call and i would have no issue. the comments seem appropriate. however, this is a landmark for the city and federal. the owners are taking advantage of the mills act which lowers property taxes from $6 million to $2 million. they submitted this. shannon ferguson was working for them when she prepared the report in 2013. it shows it intact including the rear. now the new report without substantiation because it has been substantially changed. the issue they are benefiting financially from it, and the mills act refers you to the department of interior guidelines which do not allow

changes if materials are original or in the former structure made at the landmark. instead this now the whole rear is going to be gutted and moved out. it doesn't give you any leeway to say it is not visible from the street. you are talking about the structure itself and the design. i agree with the comments if i was an architect. you are not allowed to alter the form for that sub set. secondly, the photograph shows how original it is. i would ask you and i have requested through freedom of information act any correspondence regarding the study how original the rear is. i haven't received it. if i was to make a decision on this i would want to see what

the materials are to see if it complies with the department of interior standards which on the face it doesn't. secondly, i would ask for an independent opinion, not someone conflicted by past client relationship from it as well. i would ask to see the review of exactly what the rear is before i would alter it. i am out of time. i have a lot more to say. thank you. >> 10 seconds. >> okay. i do think it breaks the mills act. the mills act reaffirms. you get the 50 grand and we get no benefit out of that. >> your time is up. >> thank you.

commissioner pearlman. >> i agree with much of what that caller just said. i would like to propose a continuance of this project until maybe two hearings from now. i don't have the date. that would give them time to prepare more information for us, details of cor cornnis. details of guard rails. i have gone through this on not even historic resources because it was part of the design exercise to design a building to fit into the context. here we are dealing with a significant landmark, and i think we are being cavalier to approve this today without much more finite detail. as the caller said, much more

detail about the changes that are on the back. i would make a motion for continuance. >> very good. thank you. commissioner so. did you want to comment? >> yes, i concur with my fellow commissioners' recommendation and want to emphasize that this is a pretty significant historic landmark. the presentation that is presented in front of us today is comparatively really light compared to other projects of similar scale. i will second commissioner pearlman's recommendation to continue this item, and also highly recommend to prepare a more detailed package for us to

understand in a very clear manner of the massing and the detail and the materiality choice for the proposed conditions. >> thank you. >> the more prescriptive you can be about the additional information you would like to see the better. specifically if it is the direction of the commission the rail is not appropriate at the upper level, we don't want to spend a lot of time and resources requiring a level of detail that is not going to be applied. if you have any specific thoughts about the addition of the cornnis treatment, that would be helpful.

any additional direction for staff and the sponsor would be helpful. >> for the project sponsor. >> mr. paul you haven't been pauled upon to be recognized by the chair. >> how do i request that? >> well you just did. >> we were told we had a 10 minute presentation and five minute rebuttal. >> you have now been recognized by the chair. >> hold off a little bit. commissioner pearlman has a couple more comments. i want to add to mr. jocelyne's request and we need to give staff some direction on the symmetrical design of the windows and the doors.

commissioner pearlman. >> i was going to address what mr. jocelyne said. i think that i agree with that whether it is symmetrical is not the critical element here. i would request if the other commissioners agree that the roof deck be eliminated on the top of the third floor so that would remove the railing from there so they wouldn't have to develop as well as then detail of the wood guard rail that would be at the second floor deck as well as detail of the cornnis, specific detail of the design of the cornnis for the under the guardrail at the second floor and roof level of the third floor. again, the form and the -- i don't happen to think the simmet

try is appropriate, but that is really up to other commissioners if they agree with me or not. i don't have any concern about that. i just don't think it is the correct thing for the back of the house. then in terms of materials, it would be good to show us the materials. we have seen material boards on many projects so if they can show illustrations of the actual materials they are planning to use, that would be very helpful as well. >> do you have any specific response? commissioner pearlman would you like the project sponsor to address your questions? i think your direction is pretty clear. >> i don't see that the project sponsor is going to have the illustrations andy tails that i

am asking for or they would have been in the project package we are looking at. no, i don't have questions for the sponsor. >> very good, commissioners. there was a motion that has been seconded. the only conversation left is really what date to continue this matter to. your next hearing is may 20th. you have only one consent calendar item. june 3rd you don't be have any items yet on your calendar. my concern is we can continue it to either one of those dates. the reality is i am not sure we will receive authorization from the mayor's office to hold a hearing on those dates. the june 17th calendar is quite full and does incorporate some essential services i expect that

to be authorized by the mayor if we are still in the shelter-in-place. i think the best thing to do at this point is continue to may 20th and hope for the best. >> that is fine with me. >> very good, commissioners. there is a motion seconded to continue this matter to may 20th. on that motion commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> commissioner president hyland. >> yes. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> that places us on item 9.

for case 2019-022536des at 4767-4773 mission street. is staff prepared to present for a landmark designation. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. melanie bishop, planning department staff presenting on behalf of my colleague mcmillan today. the item before you today is consideration to recommend landmark designation of royal baking company building located at 4767-47373 mission street in the excelsior neighborhood. on november 19, 2019, the board of supervisors introduced a resolution to initiate designation of the royal baking company. i will share my screen.

is everyone able to see the slides. >> we are, thank you. >> the draft landmark designation fact sheet was prepared by department staff and san francisco heritage. since the february 5th hearing the minor revisions were made in response to commission's comments. >> i will interrupt. my screen is blank. i don't know if everyone can see it. >> i can't see it either. >> i only see a blank screen, melanie. >> i do see the title presentation for the royal

baking with this date on it, but, unfortunately, the screen is black. there it is. >> since the february 5th initiation hearing minor revisions were made in response the commission's comments. this includes additional content regarding the changing demographics of the excelsior in the late 20th century. the additional information can be found on page -7 of the fact these. we will update as we learn more about the history of the building, occupants and community the property serves. as detailed in the fact sheet, the royal baking company building is significant for the

history of the italian american community of san francisco in the early 20th century expansion to el sell see your district -- excelsior district for the bread baking and unique commercial façade, a mixed of architectural styles. a listing of character defining features can be found in the landmark designation fact sheet on page 15. they include the pitched roof with crown, rounded corners, recessed areas above the outer bays, painted royal baking company sign and otherna menthal arch and green and yellow tile bulkhead and the piers.

the period of significance is 1935. the date encompasses the building construction and association with the italian-american community in the excelsior district. it reflects establishment of the mackca row necompany and the businesses association with the 20th century bread baking industries. designation of the royal baking company building meets two of the four priorities for designation. designations of buildings in under represented areas, currently there is only one landmark in the excelsior. designation of properties with strong cultural associations as it is associated with the italian-american heritage. the owner has been notified of the proposed designation.

there is no known neighborhood opposition as an article 10 landmark. nomination is supported by district 11 super-vies so safai. they recommend designation of the building as an article 10 landmark. if approved the department will forward the recommendation to the board of supervisors. this concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions. sf heritage is also available to answer questions on the property history and significance. i believe supervisor safai would like to say a few words. >> thank you, the supervisor safai he had to run out. we are excited to be here today to share in our support for those recommendations for designation. we only have three in the entire

district 11 that have historic status and we look to change that today. this building is a central land mark. it is an anchor representing the italian heritage within the excelsior district. many the family members live in the neighborhood. i hope that generations to come can enjoy the façade and art deco. you have our full support in moving this to the board of supervisors. we will do all we can to make sure this moves without hesitation. if there are questions, i am here to answer as well. >> thank you.

>> we will open up for public comment. >> press one and zero to get into the queue. >> do we have any callers? >> no callers. >> why don't we leave the q&a open in case we get some stragglers coming in late. commissioners the matter is before you. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions or staff or heritage or supervisors? >> thank you, commissioner hyland. rick sucray, department staff.

a special shout out and thank you to sf heritage. the landmark nomination couldn't happen without their help and support and the community partner with us on the production of the landmark report was a new process that we have been experimenting with that we think worked successfully. we just want to recognize that fact. thank you. >> thank you. no comments from the commissioners? how about a motion? >> commissionner foley. >> i would like to make a comment and recommendation for approval. i would like to recommend that a lot of these things couldn't happen without a private partnership with heritage and thesupervisor's office. i make the motion to move it

forward. >> commissioner johns. >> i second the motion. >> commissioner black. >> thank you. this is such a unique opportunity. it is a really interesting combination of a sweet little storybook structure and bold art deco larger structure. the first time i set eyes on this when i moved to town 35 years ago. it is fabulous. i thank heritage and safai and i am glad to add property to in important district. i strong he will be voting yes. >> very good. we can vote on the matter. there is a motion and second to

approve. commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner followingly. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> commissioner president hyland. >> that motion motion passes 7-0. that places us on your final item on today's agenda. number 10. legacy business program informational presentation. is staff prepared to present? >> yes, i am. >> thank you. >> i am here today to provide a general update on the legacy business registry program. before i dive into my presentation i wanted to apologize. i misunderstood the direction from the commissioners about inviting the previous legacy business applicant to this

hearing to speak. it is my intention to invite them to the next hearing, at which we will recommend support for the next round of legacy business applicants. i will once that is set we will calendar that. i want to share my screen with you. a couple slides of helpful information for you. can you see my screen? >> yes, we can, shelly. >> so the department, like the commission, is concerned for the legacy businesses and small businesses generally in light of the impacts of the covid-19 crisis. we like to reiterate commitment to supporting success and stability of legacy and small businesses during the crisis and

recovery. we understand they are critical to the health of san francisco's economy. in addition to the overall program update, i will also share about a partnership with the university of pennsylvania that is going to look at the program's impact for small business business over the past five years. lastly, i want to note that the current crisis is forcing the department to look at priority, staff capacity and impact to the budget. we have to come back with more detailed update on taking into account these impacts and what we might learn from the study we pursued with the university of pennsylvania. expect that in the next couple of months. i want to begin with an overview of the program operations. as of today, the small business commission is not currently

authorized to act on the legacy business registry during the covid-19 emergency. their staff is currently serving as disaster services supporting small businesses. their commission has been directed by may or breed to only list items on the again that that are covid related, not including new applications for the registry. however, the office of small business is relaying support to the four pending legacy business registry applicants and all businesses currently enrolled in the program. the office of small business staff has paused any new legacy business registry application reviews. they began with a hold in february and hope to resume those soon. the reason for pausing the reviewed applications is to

review the 137 grant applicati applications. they also needed to use some staff time to prepare their mandated annual report which is due january 1st. there are currently 29 application in the backlog. the oldest is from october. i could take about five months to clear that backlog in operations. we do not yet fully understand the impact of the emergency on application numbers. we know only two applications have been received since early march. that is a reduction in the number of nominations coming in. we tend to average six. when the shelter-in-place is lifted the office of small business plans to start submitting referrals in batches

of five per hearing. we would expect to be pushing forward 10 applications per month. another update to operations would be the marketing plan. it was originally scheduled to start this spring. they had to suspend that to focus on the emergency response. then, last there, is a contract for the bronze plaque that the legacy businesses can apply for. the contract is in final stages of approval. when full fully executed they et probably in may they will work on the contract deliverable design and planning. i want be to move on to give you an update on what support is available for legacy businesses during the crisis. the office of small business and the city continue to support

legacy and small businesses during the crisis by identifying financial and other assistance. i will give you a couple of examples and i can forward information from the updates i receive from their office. first, i want to note that the creative group is offering free social media services for legacy businesses. osaki is the brand that worked on the tool kit. san francisco heritage is looking to amplify any initiatives or fundraisers that legacy businesses are undertaking such as go fund me, gift cards, sales or any other emotional or marketing as assistance they need. there are several new grant opportunities starting to grant up including the small business

grant program, the care small business grant, verizon small business recovery fund and the bay area arts relief fund. these are relatively small in size ranging from 4,000 to $10,000. the other related efforts to support small businesses in the city, a small business webinar led by may or breed and then to the small business community on april 27th in response to covid-19. the city has formed an economic recovery task force managed by the office of capital planning. they are charged with guiding the city efforts through covid-19 recovery to sustain the unemployment, mitigate

unemployment hardships affecting the most vulnerable communities in san francisco and to build an equitable future. they will organize three main policy areas. job support, vulnerable populations and economic development. they held their last meeting on april 24th. the director hillis with other planning staff are members of the task force, including the district cultural staff to better understands the impact to businesses. lastly, the office of economic and work force development is publishing weekly updates for development partners including grants such as the new neighborhood mini grant fund. a couple of the districts have received those funds.

when time allows he will be back to fully supporting the program. he wasn't available today. >> well, thank you for your presentation. very informative. did you want to cue up public comments while we take a couple commissioner comments. >> yes, let's go ahead and go to

public comment. >> your conference is in question and answer mode. to summon each question press one and then zero. you have one question remaining. >> commissioners, i am from san francisco heritage. i know you are all anxious as anyone to do what you can to help the city in the face of the covid-19 pandemic but in regards to san francisco's legacy businesses, i believe your influence can be of a great help. all of san francisco's businesses, especially the public serving ones such as restaurants, cafes, bars and the like are under tremendous strain and face a very uncertain future. i know the city and state foundations, charitable agency and the general public will keep trying to keep these businesses alive. the severity of this situation

demands -- it will out strip any resources found or any money raised and we'll be delayed while surveys and these internships get going and i don't think the businesses can wait. so with the registry, we have a vetted list of businesses that this body and the city of san francisco have designated as the city's identity and culture. grants and other legacy businesses should be a priority. the enrollment in the registry program should make distribution districted to them a fairly straight forward process. in conception, the annual fund for the legacy business registry has remained exactly the same, one million dollars a year. tractor-trailer list of businesses has risen to 230 liting the same amount of money every year and the grant model and can be revisited in

streamline but there's still no denying that this extremely popular program is and was before this crisis under funded. it is needed more than ever now to help these small business and these importants to the city. so, i'm asking, heritage is asking that you consider drafting a motion, a recommendation directed to the board of supervisors to particularly assist legacy businesses with any emergency aid using the registry as the vehicle to do so and second, we'd ask that you request increased annual funding as the budget starts being planned for the program next year to ensure that it fulfills its purpose to keep these important san francisco institutions alive. so thank you so much. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> so, commissioner,.

>> thank you, what he said was very critical. i don't know how far we'll get for our budget next year and given our crisis this year but the point is well taken. in response to that, i wonder if shelly can answer the question about, do we know of any of the legacy businesses that have closed permanently or under threat of closing permanently and if not can we follow-up and find out over the next, you know, couple of hearings. this just seems like a lot of these businesses were on edge anyway before all this, before the covid-19 crisis. so, it would just be, you know, interesting and sad to find out, you know, of the businesses that we're losing to this crisis.

>> thank you. did you want to respond and i see that rick is available as well. >> i just heard that rick and regina, both from the office of small business, are both on the line and available for questions in response to commissioner pearlman's question we do intend in the planning department to start tracking these number of legacy businesses that close permanently as a result of the crisis. we're still trying to wrap our heads around how to get at that data and a very clear way but it is our intention. >> this is richard karim owe

with the legacy business program. thank you for hearing this item. we appreciate it. with needs related to the covid-19. i did want to touch base, tell you a little bit more about what we're doing as we can. so, we did finalize the business assistance grants. we issued those in april so the timing was actually perfect for a lot of the businesses to receive the money just as they need inside. froneeded it. i shifted to emergency work. although the legacy businesses are receiving office of small busy male updates which we send regularly, a few times a week, also we've been sending them special e-mail messages and have some of the grants or information that pertains to the legacy businesses, special offers and things like that.

we've been providing them with one-on-one assistance as needed as well. when they contact our office. which we've been doing for all the businesses in the city. especially fort legacy businesses. shelly talked about the creative group offer so we have been -- they have been creating adds which go back to the legacy business for the legacy business to post on their social media. but we've been posting it on the office of small business facebook and twitter accounts as well. so that's great. we're giving a little extra advertising for some of the legacy businesses. plus, as of this week, we're going to be starting to do a legacy business showcase on the office of small business e-mails which go out to quite a number of small businesses and people in the city.

we are also having a offer from a legacy business. they're offering an addis ababa count and coal hardware is offering 20% off to legacy businesses. we are still going on the bronze plaque and we can do some planning on that. so, just to let you know about some of the businesses that are -- that have closed, slims closed. they said it was not related to the covid-19 crisis but the timing just worked out that way so they're one of the businesses that closed. cafe closed in december and they're looking for a new space when the crisis occurred so they're still looking for space so we'll see what happens after things start opening up again.

we did lose the laundry mat. that is in the richmond district. that closed and that was not related to covid-19. that was just a disagreement they have with the landlord and the timing was such it happened in february and end of february. and then i understand the saint francis fountain who wrote a letter to the small business commissioner there struggling. i would say all of the legacy businesses, even those open right now are struggling just like all of the small businesses in the city so we're doing the best we can to help as many businesses as we can. we would like to keep open all the businesses that we can and could definitely use help doing that. >> thank you, rick. thank you for jumping on the meeting today.

if you can hang on, if you have more time, some of the commissioners might have some questions. >> thank you. i had a few questions and they're really districted at shelly -- wait, the first one is a request to you, president highland and the rest are directed at shelly. i would like to ask you to consider what the board of supervisors focusing on the two areas that he mentioned about the increase of funding and then to figure out how we can revisit the program to allow for a more expeditious process. and my other questions are directed at shelly, specifically about the university of pennsylvania intern is that the duties of the intern and something that we and he or she

and has that already been determined? >> hi, chairman, i'm currently working on the draft scope for that project. the thought was it will be a partnership with the university of pennsylvania. brandy mayson, one of the associate professor for the preservation program there will actually manage the intern and i will provide research assistan assistance. since they were sponsoring the intern i will let them take the lead on the scope but randy is very open to exploring sections we would like to have answered during the research. six weeks doesn't allow for a great deal of research so this might be safe to set a foundation for a longer process that we can complete as more funding comes in.

>> i'd like to see if this intern can focus more specifically on the legacy businesses and just be able to provide more data for us and for the offices small business that we can make a stronger case that these number one legacy businesses are important that they are under funded and just whatever else that can bolster the need for these businesses to stay around. i can talk to you off line about what i'd like to see or actually meet with rick to see what can we do collectively to push this forward. i think that needs to be a priority. these businesses are suffering and it's not like their problems are going to go away in a month. this is going to be an ongoing thing and i think we need to take into consideration this priority over kind of other things that may be able to be

pushed back. and in the second question i have is about what your powerpoint said about new staff. i didn't quite understand that. can you further explain that to me? >> i can and i would invite jeff jocelyn or claudia to jump in as well. we will be transitioning more into supporting the programs to help out with applications review in the next couple of months. i won't be the sole planner of supporting the program moving forward. >> great. >> i think ms. flores would like to respond as well. >> sure. >> good afternoon, commissioners, flores department staff. shelly covered it mostly. we're looking at making sure

that we can support the program that is at capacity but we are balancing that with waiting to hear what the budget impact will be for us but we are very committed to the program so we want to see how we can spread the load across more staff. >> great, so when we talk about more staff, are we talking about one or two or five? i'm just trying to be optimistic? >> i will let jeff weigh in on that. i don't think we landed on the specifics but jeff would you like to chime in? >> yeah, please. it will be as needed. frankly, as we administer the practice overtime it's typically been the domain of one individual which has both its positives and its challenges so the intent is to have more range

of staff involved in this for both redundancy purposes as well as the opportunity it presents to participate in the process and just create more ability to adapt as the demands of the program change overtime. >> so this will be a shelly plus one? is that what i'm hearing you say? >> or not entirely certain yet but generally, yes. right now the program itself and its entirety occupies about .25 f.t.e. of our staff. and that .25 has been shelly's. so we think again they're opportunities and advantages to spreading that over multiple folks and again it will allow us the ability to expand and contract as the demands on the

program call for. >> very good to hear. thank you. that's all. thank you. >> great. thank you. commissioner black -- >> i have sort of three points. first of all, i want to say that i strongly support sending a lot to heritage. heritage recommendation we send a letter to the supervisors. two i saw the map that staff showed at beginning of the presentation to be interesting. i noticed there are areas of the city that don't seem to have as many legacy businesses as other areas. i don't know whether that's just the way things are or whether we might want to consider in the future targeting those areas. but more immediately, i wonder, and this could be just pie in the sky but i wonder if we couldn't use the covid-19 crisis

as a background or a motivator for the local newspapers or the chronicle to get involved writing each week say on sunday about one or two of the legacy businesses. starting with those that are currently open for pick up service, say restaurants or those that are really needing support and then transitioning into other legacy businesses. most san franciscans want these businesses to survive and i know that people like me are trying our best to support these businesses. i wonder if it couldn't work and

i thought it might help. >> we're getting background static to i want to remind folks to mute your mics fur not speaking. >> thank you commissioner black. i had a couple questions for shelly or rick. or both. did i hear this correctly that the legacy applications are put on pause. >> i can speak to that. this is richard carillo with the legacy business program. we have about 30 unread applications in our cue. new application cue. as time allows, which might be just an hour a week or so, i'm reviewing narratives only. >> my question is actually on the new applications.

shelly did point out that there were 29 in the cue. we understand it and i heard her say we're not accepting any new applications, is that correct? >> that's not correct. if businesses would like to submit new applications, then they're welcome to do so and we're continuing to respond to any messages and messages we're getting and we only received two since the shutdowns. if they review those narratives and as we complete a narrative, we move on to the next one so i'm just going to have a series of completed narratives which is demanded the hardest part of the application and when things open up again, we'll complete the application and get letters of nomination and then submit them in the order in which they were received. >> rick, i don't want to remind

you are doing a phenomenal job and we appreciate that. so the small business commission is not hearing legacy business cases because they have other higher priorities? is that what was stated earlier? >> they were instructed to hear items that were related to the coronavirus pandemic and that does not include new business. >> in our assessment of the current to see the status or how compromised these businesses have been. i know you are busy but is there

anyway we can make an assessment is there someone that could push something like that forward. >> can i invite regina, director of the small business to speak to the current situation with the small businesses in the city? >> and the reason i ask is i'm wondering if some of those businesses are compromised specifically because of -- if they're shut down they can be compromised so that should put them in a priority status. >> i am on yes. >> so, thank you for that feedback commissioner and we will definitely take it into

consideration. rick and i just had a conversation as part of the annual report, while generally we were reporting up until the end of march fort annual report, doing and knowing these unusual circumstances has been discussed both with shelly and with rick. we will definitely be reporting out impacts to businesses as it relates to the covid-19 in terms of their survival. and also making an assessment as to the number of restaurants there are. there are haired war hardware ay stores so they're less impacted as restaurants and bars are and other businesses that are completely shut. so, we will be taking a look at that. it will also be important

metrics for us to know from these businesses whether they did receive any p.p.p. or idle funding or engage in any of the other federal programs that are there to help assist in their survival. we're not doing that just yet because we're just now hearing from businesses that they are receiving -- if they are to receive it, they are receiving their p.p.p. funding now. the idle funding is coming in a little slower. so, i anticipate within the next two to three weeks, we'll get a good assessment as to whether our legacy businesses were able to get those funds and just how that will impact them and help with their survival.

>> excellent. obviously we want to be sensitive to your workload. we also don't want to let these legacy businesses linger unaware of their plight. there are other resources too and i'm wondering if regina or claudia, if you compile the list of other resources, i know you have the once listed in the powerpoint but i'm thinking of just one that i had become just incredible resource for restaurants and feed the line and we can donate to buy a meal from that restaurant and it gets donated to the frontline workers at the hospitals. there's probably several other resources like that. i don't know how we can collect that and get that information t.

maybe more specifically that you have this e-mail or the news letter for this legacy business. do you have a list of other resources that you are collecting? >> this is regina, again, yes. i'm not sure. it would be great if you can share this with rick about feed the line. the city is and rick can speak to this in more detail. the city is issuing through h.s.a. a railroa r.f.q. to partr restaurants with feeding the homeless and frontline workers. so, we have definitely -- rick has been brought in because he deals with the legacy businesses and because these are legacy businesses they're more inclined to be able to i think

participate in these programs. they're ready to go. they've been very conscious about connecting our legacy businesses with these kinds of efforts that the city is also putting together. and rick can provide more detail on that if you would like more information on it. >> well, i'm in support of issuing a memo or a letter to the board of supervisors. we can talk as a commission and i think there's three items i would like to see on that. at least two i've heard and i heard something about pause and i'd like to address that somehow. whatever the small business commission can do to not pause legacy business issues, i think it would be nice to include that

in the letter. for the staff for rick and regina and claudia, is there anything that we can do to help you in what you are doing that we can add to this letter? anything? >> you've definitely addressed some of the port needs. we'll think about it and share it with shelly, who can share it with you. we'll give that a little more thought. >> i'm wondering if we might want to agenized another update in an upcoming meeting. i know it takes time for you to prepare and it takes time out of your day. i found today's conversation incredibly helpful and it's helpful to you and put some

focus on these issues. i know there's so many things going on but, if you can just keep light on some of the things that may not be getting any attention. so what we need is a motion from the commission to write a letter and i'll find what the items in the lettering going t letter ar. >> i make that motion. >> second. >> so i heard that we wanted to reiterate heritage's recommendations which were two, i believe. i think they were more generally that they wanted to make sure that the business registry continues to get support and

commissioner, you mentioned something about making that more expeditious. do you want to elaborate on that for clarity? >> well, i think that a letter from the commission to talk about our concerns, number two that to make sure that we can revisit it more often. to make sure that it really accommodates the current needs of the increasing needs. it's important and to just state the lack of funding that the program currently has and hopefully, because of covid-19 and all the shelter in place restrictions that they will be more considerate of allowing us to take a more expeditious path to supporting more legacy businesses or just figuring out a way to maintain, sustain and

increase the pool. >> that's right. so i would, in the letter, what i would like to say as far as the pause that the small business commission is taking on new applications, i understand that they're having to prioritize their issues that they're dealing with but it would be great if they can unpause those and more specifically any of these 29 or before that or before that at the moment are compromised businesses that could use some help that at least we pay attention to that. right. >> totally in agreement. >> i was just informed by the city coun that this is an information-only item.

vickey, can you give us some guidance? >> yes, victoria wong, city attorney's office. can you hear me? >> we can hear you if it's faint. >> is that better? >> a little, yes. >> so, you can correct me but i believe we are discussing informational items regarding the legacy business program generally so my recommendation is if the commission is interested in vote on a motion to send an official letter from the commission that we agenized that item for future hearings. >> issue a letter of support that would have to be agenized as a motion?

>> if the letter is coming from the commission the commission does need to take an action and i believe that should be agenized for public notice. >> well, maybe we look forward to the next hearing and see if we can agenized that. i appreciate all claudia and rick and regina for you participating today. i'm sure you have a million things going on and same with you shelly, we're appreciating your spending the time so can you get us an update. it takes time to prepare and it's not as easy for you to just jump in a meeting and talk about things. we appreciate your time. we would like the conversation to continue so maybe we can take this off line and figure out how

to agenda. >> if i may, i think this direction is fairly clear and we can simply add an action item that would be quick since most of the bullet points have already been vetted during this informational presentation and a draft can be circulated ahead of that hearing for commissioner review and allow for public comment on any of those public matters that would be incorporate inside that letter. we would agenized that malt matter on may 20th if we receive authorization from the mayor's office to proceed with another remote hearing. otherwise we have to wait until the next time we're able to convene. >> that would be wonderful. if possible, if there is anyway to do the scan of any of the

current businesses and the ones in the cue and those in the applications that are compromised at the moment. we can include that then. i don't know if we can get that information by may 20th. that would be wonderful. >> staff has heard that request from the commission. >> great. >> all right. i think we already took public comment on this. are there any other comments from the commissioners? >> can i jump in for a second. i just wanted to comment on -- as of monday, all construction is allowed. before that, it was only for essential businesses. an essential project. the project is considered essential. so in the same way, could the small business administration look at legacy businesses because now attempts are

considering non essential business and all projects at this point so in the same vein, could the s.b.a. or small business office look at all legacy business applications now? just in peril. >> great. >> do you have a comment? >> i just wanted to clarify about the pause i mentioned. that pause was just taken by small business staff to address the grant applications so that is over now. that was between february and march. the concerns the small business commission's activities and whether or not they can hold a hearing. i understand that the mayor's office decision, the mayor's decision that they have to seek

authorization to hold their hearings and they're not authorized by the mayor to hear legacy businesses. so, i'm not sure how much agency they have and making that decision to what to agenized or when to hold hearings. >> by the time you write a letter that would be listed. you wanted to comment? >> >> was that districted to me? >> yes, just that i wanted to say consistent with what shelly said, each commission's authority to hold hearings is governed by the state's emergency orders as well as the mayor's emergency proclamations and authorizations so that is correct. the small business commission and every other commission depends on