wednesday, october 7, 2020. i can't believe it's october and i'm still heading this into the record. on february, 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. on may 29, 2020, the mayor's office authorized all commissions to reconvene remotely. this will be our eighth remote hearing. hearings require everyone's attention and most of all, your patience. if you're not speaking, please mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. sfgovtv is streaming this hearing life. and we will receive public comment for each item on the agenda. comments are opportunities to speak during the comment period are available by calling

1-415-655-0001. and entering access code, 146 703 5243. when we reach your item and you would like this submit your public testimony, please press star and 3 to be added to the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when the time is reached, i will announce your time is up. best practice to speak clearly and slowly, and please mute the volume on your television or computer. before i take roll, i did have an announcement to the historic preservation commission. you may have heard that a -- the planning department's longtime -- probably longest zoning administrator passed away

in september and so i would just request that the commission adjourn in his honor and eternal memory. so now i would like to take role. >> president hyland: here. >> vice president matsuda: here. >> commissioner black: here. >> commissioner foley: here. >> commissioner johns: here. >> commissioner pearlman: here. >> commissioner so: here. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission of items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. each member of the public may

address the commission for up to three minutes. we should take public comment, so members of the public, i will remind you at this time that if you wish to speak on matters that are not on agenda, you need to press star and 3 to be entered into the queue. i do see one person requesting to speak. go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your public testimony? caller? are you prepared to submit your public testimony? okay. apparently not. so i'm sorry. i don't know why it's not

letting me clear the callers. anyway, commissioners, there are no additional requests to speak, placing us under department matters, item 1, director's announcements. i don't believe director hillis is with us. item 2, review of past events at the planning commission, staff report and announcements. i don't have any reports. does any other member of the staff, rich, did you want -- or elizabeth, or liz? if not, commission matters, item 3, president's report and announcements. >> president hyland: i have none, but do you have something to speak to? >> yes, the department staff. i just wanted to recognize that ream the board of supervisors -- recently the board of supervisors introduced an ordinance pursuant to senior

mandelman for the marking of the lions house. that will be put forward sometime in the future. >> president hyland: thank you. i have no announcements. you can move on. >> jonas: okay. commissioners, item 5, commission comments and questions. >> president hyland: i believe we have the minutes still, item 4. >> jonas: i'm sorry. i was distracted. you're right. item 4, consideration of adoption draft minutes for september 16, 2020. we should open this up for public comment. if any member of the public would like to speak to the minutes, please press star 3. i don't believe this person is requesting to speak to the

minutes. are you requesting to speak to the minutes? >> no, we're here for the mills act. >> if you press star 3 again on your phone, you will no longer raise your hand to speak. okay, commissioners, that will conclude public comment on the minutes. the matter is now before you. >> president hyland: any comments or motion. >> move to approve. >> second. >> jonas: thank you on that motion to adopt minutes, commissioner black? >> commissioner black: yes. >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner pearlman: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> vice president matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. >> that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. now, commissioners, we are on

item 5, commission comments and questions. >> president hyland: very good. commissioner matsuda? >> commissioner matsuda: hello, everyone. i just wanted to share there was a blurb on one of the websites that the buena vista cafe has a new sign on their door given to them by clam's. and i thought this was interesting and thought that maybe we can have a re-discussion with the planning department about our plaques. because it included, i think, very interesting and informative information about the intangibles that this restaurant, particular restaurant, or this particular bar. i think it's world famous, their

irish coffees are the best. it talked about that. i thought that was a great thing. i thought maybe we could start to think about ways that our plaques can reflect the tangible and the intangibles. >> president hyland: great ideas. any other commissioners? if not, we be move on. -- we can move on. >> jonas: that will place us on the regular calendar, 6a, b, c, 20204819, 2020, 4811mls. and 4685mls, for properties at 450 pacific avenue, 1315 waller

street and 59 potomac street respectfully. these are mills act presentations. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. i'm going to try to share my screen now. >> jonas: hold on, elizabeth. i need to make you the presenter. are you seeing my screen? >> jonas: yes. >> wonderful. starting again, giving overview of the mills act historical property contract this year. i'd also like to acknowledge the planners that have been working on the mills act this year. that would be alexander kirby,

michele taylor and shannon ferguson and our technical specialist that has been working on the monitoring programs this year. so the items before you today are three mills act property contracts. the mills act legislation authorizes local governments to enter into contracts with private owners of qualified historic properties. this agreement provides property tax reduction to owners of those historic properties who can then allocate the savings toward an appropriate maintenance and restoration plan. the planning department currently holds 42 active mills act contracts. the department received three mills act applications this year. the department staff reviewed each application for completeness. department staff conducted free approval inspection. and worked with applicants to

revise rehabilitation, restoration and maintenance plans to ensure work will be conducted in conformance with the standards of rehabilitation. the staff also reviewed applications on the merits of the five priority considerations. which are provided on page 7 in the executive summary section of your packet. i will briefly summarize what the considerations are. necessity. this criterion will say that the property is in need of substantial rehabilitation and restoration. and that significant associated costs. investment. the project will result in additional private investment in the property other than for routine maintenance. distinctiveness. the project preserves a distinctive example of property deserving of the contract.

recently designated landmarks. these are properties recently designated and will be given priority consideration. and legacy business. the project will preserve a property at which a business included in the legacy business registry is located. the mills act application review also includes a determination if a property meets minimum eligibility requirements. in addition to being registered on a register, it's limited to properties $3 million or less, and $5 million or less for commercial properties. however, if the property exceeds the assessed valuation, the historic preservation commission may recommend that the board of supervisors grant an exemption from the limitations upon finding that the site or building is a particularly distinctive -- significant

resource. and granting the exemption will assist in the preservation of the site, building or structure that would otherwise be in danger of demolition, substantial alterations or disrepair. these requirements and priorities are consistent with the commission's resolution number 1127, preservation planning on social equity and the planning department's racial and social equity initiative. one application before you today, 59 potomac meets all eligibility requirements and does not require an exemption. the two remaining properties, at 450 pacific and 1450 waller exceed the valuation and request an exemption from the eligibility requirement. your packet contains a draft valuation for each property, outlining the potential property tax savings. these figures were compiled by the assessor recorder office. if approved, all three owners

will enter into a contract with the city and the agreements are 10-year revolving contracts renewed annually. >> thank you, elizabeth. good afternoon, commissioners. michele taylor, planning department staff. the first application before you is 450 pacific avenue. which is on the north side of pacific avenue at the corner of osgood place. this is contributing building to the article 10 act. it is a 4-story brick and timber office building, first constructed circa 1887 as the kentucky stables building and rebuilt after the 1906 earthquake and fire. 450 pacific avenue is currently valued by the assessor's office

over $5 million and required a historic structure report to determine the condition of the property. the property meets one of two requirements for granting exemption. 450 -- sorry, it meets two requirements. it is important contributor to the district. early construction date and survival through the earthquake and fires. it's historic use with a stable and for its design, which includes the brick facade and classical design articulation. the building contributes to the narrative of jackson square as the only significant collection of structures that represent the san francisco 19th century heritage. although the property is not in danger of demolition, substantial alteration or

disrepair, staff supports eligibility exemption because of the applicant's commitment to address deferred maintenance. the proposed program -- rehabilitation program includes the restoration of the ground story store front. this will be completed in addition to scopes to rehabilitation to repair aspects of the property in fair condition, including brickwork, repointing and window replacement. the estimated cost of the rehabilitation work is more than $780,000 over 10 years. the proposed maintenance plan includes the annual inspection of roofing. maintenance work is estimated to cost $14,725 annually. all proposed work is intended to

meet the standards. this subject property meets three of the five priority considerations. necessity, investment and distinctiveness. the proposed rehabilitation requires associated costs to assure the preservation of the subject property. the property owner will invest additional money toward the rehabilitation other than for routine maintenance. finally, the proposed project will preserve a distinctive example of a pre-1906 house. it's estimated the property owner will receive $99,000 in tax savings in a result of the mills act contract. next slide. the second application is 1315 waller street. located on the south side of waller street with delmar and masonic avenue. the subject building is a two and a half story single-family dwelling designed in the queen

ann style by the ship builder john a. whelan in 1896. winter is one of a row of four homes refused to see the four seasons for their associated ornamental detailing. it is currently being reviewed by the park service. the subject property is currently valued by the assessor's office over $3 million and required a historic structure report to determine the condition of the building. the property requirements for granting exemption from the limitations on eligibility. the property is particularly significant resource as a queen anne style building built by john a. halen in 1896, known as winter. it's one of the row of four homes known as the four seasons. under the second requirement,

the staff weighed the work to the building and recent work in 2018, which included remodel and seismic strengthening. exemptions for the property, because of the applicant's commitment to address the deferred maintenance in the report. the applicant has proposed replacement of the missing front landing, select dry rot repair of the elements in the front elevation, full roof replacement, select window replacement and full paint and repair all elevations. rehabilitation is estimated to cost $416,000 over 10 years. the deferred maintenance plan includes roofs, gutter, wood siding and trim. maintenance estimates the cost at $920,000 annually. all proposed work is intended to meet the standards. the property meets three of the five priority considerations,

necessity, investment and distinctiveness. the proposed rehabilitation will require associated costs. the property owner will invest in additional money toward the rehabilitation other than for routine maintenance. finally the project will preserve its distinctive example of a victorian-style home. the assessor estimated that the property owner will receive $4267 as tax savings as a result of the contract. the last property before you is 59 potomac street on the west side of potomac street between waller street and duboce avenue. it is a contributor to the article 10, the park historic district. it's a two-story over garage single-family dwelling built in 1899 and features a gable roof and bay window.

the subject property is valued under $3 million and meets all eligibility requirements. the proposed rehabilitation plans include seismic strengthening, roof replacement with siding repair and painting, front stair replacement. rehabilitation work is estimated to cost $296,000 over 10 years. the proposed maintenance plan includes any inspections of roof, gutters and downspout, and inspection of the roof every five years. any needed repairs will be made in-kind. maintenance work is estimated to cost approximately $2,000 annually. the subject property meets three of the five priority considerations. necessity, investment and distinctiveness. the proposed rehabilitation will require significant associated costs to ensure the preservation of the property. the property owner will invest

additional money toward the rehabilitation other than for routine maintenance. finally, the proposed rehabilitation project will preserve a distinct example of a victorian style home. the assessor estimated the property owner will receive $23,165 in tax savings as a result of the contract. in addition, to presenting the three mills act before you today, i would like to provide a brief update on the status of the city's current mills act contract. included in the packet is a monitoring report providing analysis of the program. the planning department received affidavits from all mills act property owners which documented rehabilitation maintenance work performed in 2019. our analysis shows that 33 of

the 37 properties are in compliance with the mills act. four properties require additional information or building permit applications for completed work, however, most of the building permit applications have been delayed. they agreed to move to work in the following years. the properties were generally being maintained in good condition. staff has also received a report prepared by the assessor that indicates that the total property tax savings received by all current mills act property owner is 1,245,000.

this report can be made available for your review. the staff recommends the historic preservation commission recommend approval to the board of supervisors for the following reasons. they're all qualified historic. and all proposed work is intended to meet the secretary of the interior standards. staff would also like to inform the commission that the draft resolution for 1315 waller street requires a revision per the city attorney office. resolution has been revised to declare that the mills act contract is contingent been 1315 waller street being formally listed on the national register which we expect to occur by the end of november. this concludes my presentation. elizabeth and i are happy to answer any questions.

property owners are here today and would like to present. thank you. >> president hyland: thank you, ms. taylor. should we go to the property owners? and would three minutes be sufficient for each of them? >> jonas: i think we should, commission president hyland, but i think -- i understand that commissioner pearlman is requesting to be recused from 450. >> that is correct. >> jonas: we should do that. it's not as, commissioner pearlman, you can leave. it will be virtually noted and will take up the 450 pacific matter separately from the other two mills act applications. >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. >> president hyland: so we don't have to vote -- >> jonas: we do need to vote on the recusal.

i'll take this opportunity to remind commissioner pearlman and all the other commissioners, when you are requesting to be recused or even if you're absent and would have requested to be recused from any matter on the agenda, you need to fill out a recusal notification form within 10-15 days and present that to the ethics commission. i will entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> second. >> jonas: thank you. on that motion, then to recuse commissioner pearlman from 450 pacific, commissioner black? >> commissioner black: yes. >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner pearlman: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> vice president matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. >> jonas: okay, you are hereby

recused from 450 pacific, so we will take up that matter first. and i will just quickly look up who is the presenter and unmute. mr. fellman, you have three minutes. >> hello, honorable commissioners. my name is jessie feldman. i'm the project sponsor for 450 pacific. more than anything else, i'm here should you have any questions to open myself up for questions you have about the projects. we absolutely love this building. it is extremely historic significant building. i'm sure you have specs on the building, but i will share this is stable house and livery for the house across the street. we believe it was a chinese

cigar factory. the building had really interesting historic elements to it, including on the vertical beams in the building, there are still gnaw marks from the horses on the beams. otherwise, again, just here to answer any questions if you have them. >> jonas: okay. that concludes your presentation. i will take the next sponsor for waller street. okay. you have three minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is mr. lifer. can you hear me?

>> jonas: we can. >> okay. excellent. together with my wife amy, we are the owners of 1315 waller street and appreciate an opportunity to address the commission live. we've lived in san francisco since 2003 and have two children. as michele mentioned, our application is for 1315 waller street, one of the four seasons houses. i'd like to take this opportunity to thank michele as well as everyone in the planning staff involved in the mills application process who have been very helpful in educating us and guiding us through what can be a complicated process for someone new to it. as she mentioned in her recap, we're planning approximately $400,000 of rehabilitation work

that focuses on different pieces of the exterior and the roofing. and that includes the entry stairs and landing and railings, repainting the facade and restoring dry-rotted decorative elements and replacing a number of windows and doors in a historically appropriate way. and our maintenance plan involves enhour suring that the -- ensuring that the facade and stairs and other aspects of the house remain in good condition to ensure the long life and preservation of the property. we love this home and we also see it as something that we take care of on behalf of our neighbors and san francisco. we get lots of visitors walking down the street -- well maybe

not this year -- but lots of tourists taking photos of the house and the neighborhood. and it's something that we do gladly, but we are also really appreciative of the mills act and the help that it can provide in terms of being able to do restoration maintenance work in really the right way that preserves the character of the building. and with that, those are the comments i wanted to make. as with the previous speaker, i'm happy to answer any questions should there be any. thank you. >> jonas: great, thank you. okay, this is your opportunity to submit your testimony. you have three minutes. >> hi. my name is john. i'm here with my wife, cammy.

we're the owners of potomac. we want to thank the commission for hearing us. and michele for her wonderful overview for the scope and plan for our project. we've been in san francisco since 2011. we bought the house on potomac street in 2017. we think the duboce park area and historic district is a lovely neighborhood and fell in love with that part of the city. we were very fortunate to find that house. we actually bought it from the family that lives next door. they own both properties and they allowed us to purchase the house from them. sadly, as you can see from the photos, the house is in such disarray. it really hasn't been taken care of over the last little bit of time. so we're really excited and thankful to the mills act to help us with rehabilitation of the property. so we're going to fix the roof, the exterior walls, the siding, the paneling. the windows and doors all need

replaced. the exterior stairs and planters, definitely not period correct and we're planning on replacing and updating and fixing up and maintaining. and with structural upgrades to the house to ensure its safety over time. so, yeah, there is quite of a bit of work. the mills act helps us tremendously in achieving everything we want to do to live in this lovely neighborhood. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. commissioners, we should open up for public comment. at this time, members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your testimony if you so choose, by pressing star and 3 to get into the queue. i see no members of the public requesting to speak. so public comment should be closed and the matters are now

before you. again, i'll just simply remind you that commissioner pearlman is recused from the 450 pacific matter and we should take up that matter separately. >> president hyland: okay. why don't we take it back to the commission for comments, but jonas, i believe there was a caller previously, so maybe he's having a hard time connecting. >> that was the project sponsor. >> president hyland: got it. commissioners, any comments? >> so again, if we could discuss 450 pacific and then vote on that and then we can reinstate commissioner pearlman. >> president hyland: okay, sounds good. why don't we take up 450 pacific, commissioners? >> commissioner black: yes. hi. thanks for the opportunity. i really am a big fan of the

mills act program. and it seems to be used more for residential property owners than it is for commercial owners, but i think the 450 pacific property is really important to highlight how this is a good tool for commercial property owners as well. the criteria for the exemption requirements, you know, it's to preserve a site or a building that would otherwise be in danger of demolition or substantial alteration or disrepair. and that is true, but i think what is really interesting and important about this building is that this building is spectacular in its own right, but it's nestled within a whole bunch of other early 19th century buildings that are low-scale commercial buildings. it's really the last

remaining -- or one of the last remaining sections of the city where we still have that street sense of what this city was like at that time. so even though the criteria doesn't speak directly -- the exemption criteria doesn't speak directly to the broader neighborhood, i think it's an important point to bring up, because i think it's not just the building here, but its context that is essential to preserve. i appreciate commercial property owners who love a building. that speaks to my heart. and i love the fact that someone wants to do the right thing with this building and get rid of some of the bad changes. and bring it back to what it should be. and so i appreciate that. and i strongly support this application. >> commissioner foley: i

actually -- building on monday. i want to say, i really appreciate the mills act and what they're doing to this building. to your point, commissioner black, it is a really wonderful neighborhood of buildings down there and we really enjoyed walking by it. congratulations to 450 pacific, you're doing great work there. thank you very much. >> president hyland: any other commissioners have comments on this? i have one. i don't see anyone else. so i'll -- commissioner matsuda, go ahead. >> vice president matsuda: first of all, i agree with all the other commissioners in that i'm very happy and pleased that we have individuals who are really trying to be very, very good

stewards of historic properties that i think are very important. and you know, investing, what is it? $782,000 for rehabilitation and $14,000 for maintenance really shows that commitment. i think, though, that i'm going to ask you, president hyland, that i reserve my comments about this property and the other two properties, just in general, for maybe discussion later on, because i do have some comments about the overall intent and purpose. and target audience of the mills act. but i do support this particular property, thank you. >> president hyland: thank you. yeah, we can come back to those comments, commissioner matsuda. the one thing i wanted to point out to the commissioners and to the public, while this is a commercial property -- someone needs to mute their mic, please.

there we go. thank you. while this is a commercial property and the owners taking the efforts to restore it and to apply for the mills act, quite often small businesses are tenants in these buildings. and the property tax is quite often, if not always, probably more often than not, a pass through to those tenants. and this property has recently been sold. there are other properties in the jackson square that were recently built and recently been sold. and those pass through property taxes have created a huge burden on the small business tenants. we also have prop 15 which is on our ballot in four weeks. if that were to pass, we'll see commercial properties -- property tax increases. so i fully support this project and i think that the point is

that these benefits do get passed through the to property tenants which primary on these particular buildings are quite often small business firms and businesses. so with that, i will be happy to support this. could we have a motion for 450? >> approve 450. >> second. >> jonas: thank you. on that motion then to adopt a recommendation for approval. commissioner black? >> commissioner black: yes. >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> commissioner matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. >> jonas: so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. and now commissioner pearlman can rejoin us.

you may take the remaining two mills act applications. >> president hyland: okay. any other commissioners have comments on either the 1315 waller or 59 potomac? >> president hyland: okay, commission matsuda. >> commissioner matsuda: just one comment. number one, i do support both properties because i, again, i really honor and thank the property owners for being good stewards and continuing to be good stewards of important historic properties in the city and county of san francisco. i did note that reading the information on 1315 waller, that they did, i guess two years ago, take out a loan for seismic work

and i'm just wondering if that was immediate. that the seismic work was needed to be done immediately? or you know, like, if something with an emergency nature could be considered for some time of retroactive consideration? just food for thought. and then just in general about the mills act, i know that it's intended as an incentive for people who own historic properties to maintain it and make -- and just be good stewards about it, but i'm just kind of figuring out and wondering, what kind of target audience are we talking about? and whether that target audience can be expanded and included? particularly with the lens of what our priorities are now with social and racial equity. i could see this project being

expanded to communities that have not traditionally applied for mills act contracts. there are still a number of properties in certain parts of the city that i think could clearly fall into this guideline and these criteria, particularly in the sunset district or the mission and in the richmond district. there are a lot of gems out there that definitely fall within this assessed value. and i'm just wondering, why we're not reaching them and why this project isn't introduced to them as an incentive to find ways to maintain their properties? i'm just kind of thinking of a scenario where a person, a family, very middle to low-income family has had a house, let's say out in the richmond district for a number of years, 60, 70 years and is passing this on to their

children, who may not have the financial means to undertake such a maintenance or rehabilitation program without this, but we're not seeing those kinds of applications. and i'm just wondering just on a more general scale, how we can go about doing that and maybe trying to figure out through a separate meeting and another agenda item how we can further pursue that. >> president hyland: i think that's a -- some very good points. i think that similar to our legacy business, we can work more closely with the district supervisors and other neighborhood groups to try to identify applicants that we can encourage to apply for the mills act. i did wonder if maybe staff

could respond to your question on the application. the retroactive, the seismic. is that something either of you can speak to? >> yeah, i can speak in a limited way on that. so the way that the mills act works is, you don't -- the amount of tax savings you receive is not dependent on the amount of money that you spend on the property. it's really an assessed value calculation performed by the assessor and we do have a representative from the assessor recorder office if you have specific questions about that calculation. so as part of our efforts a couple years ago to look closely

at the requirements of the mills act application, we did ask the applicants only include work they had performed in the year prior to the mills act application as part of our consideration of cost. that's why we don't typically consider the amount of work done prior to the application being submitted. and that was at the recommendation of the board of supervisors. but it will not affect their tax savings one way or another. >> president hyland: so i guess to that point, the 1315 waller did do about a million dollars worth of work to the building in prior years that will not be incorporated into this tax benefit, only the current work, a little over $400,000? >> that's right. >> president hyland: i do think -- i don't know if today is the time, probably not, but

we probably should agendize a conversation around the criteria for mills act. i know there has been some comments in years past from the g.o.a., the government oversight and audit committee, whether some property owners need -- whether it's a needs-based recognition or if it's an incentive to do the right thing. so i think maybe we can have a conversation around that so we can at least have more of a dialogue and intentional dialogue with the g.o.a. on how we're looking at these things. i believe this is always an incentive, not a needs-based evaluation. that being said, we have a $3 million for residential and $5 million for commercial limit, assessed value limit. and i think the residential property certainly in a majority -- a majority of the city, it's not too difficult to

get a single-family house with $3 million valuation these days. so that might be something you need to look at as well. with that, commissioner pearlman, did you want to --? >> commissioner pearlman: yeah. i wanted to address that exact point about valuation in response to commissioner matsuda's point. the problem with properties that are -- been owned for 50, 60, 70 years, their tax assessment is based on a 1979 assessment. so the tax benefit is so tiny that it's not -- you know, because basically if they have a house today worth $3 million, their tax assessment value might only be $700,000 because that's the value in 1979 when prop 13 went through. the challenge is the incentive is so small relative to the amount of money they've have to

spend of money they didn't have in the first place. so i think the idea of having a conversation about -- about this on a future agenda is really -- i think it's really important. because basically, the only people who are applying are people who are buying these properties now, because the values are so -- the buildings are so expensive. to them the benefits are a lot. that's just my two cents. >> president hyland: thank you. commissioner matsuda. >> commissioner matsuda: i wanted to qualify, it's the successor trustee, rather than the particular current owner, where the value -- let's say it's a relative who doesn't benefit from a lot of the estate planning, tax planning incentives that are offered. and so they would -- and they want to continue to support their family home. or support, you know, a lot of

the intangible things that happen in this particular building. i'm looking at -- i'm just trying to figure out and want to have a dialogue about other ways in which we can look at this. >> president hyland: no, i think having that conversation is really valuable. >> president hyland: to that point, when we have that conversation, it might be useful to see the history of the mills act contracts. what neighborhoods are they in? what were the assessed values of the property? what areas do we not have any mills act from and how can we increase those? and my expectation is, there is probably going to be -- with exception of richmond and sunset, there is going to be a direct correlation with the legacy business application. so, shall we -- elizabeth, did you want to speak?

>> yes, i just wanted to acknowledge that we can definitely work with the commission secretary to get this on the agenda in the future. we'll also coordinate with our racial and social equity team and our landmarks team. i think it's important, because this is incentive program and there are limitations within the incentive, to make sure we can remove barriers from underrepresented land marks. and that will help with the mills act program in those specific areas that commissioner matsuda is talking about. >> president hyland: right. thank you. so can we have a motion for these two mills act? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners, on that motion then to adopt recommendations for approval, commissioner black? >> commissioner black: yes. >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes.

>> commissioner pearlman: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> commissioner matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. >> jonas: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners, that places us on item 7. for case number 20191260. 1035 howard street. this is a permit to alter. is staff prepared to present? >> yes, thank you, jonas. i just want to make sure you can hear me. >> jonas: yes, we can. >> great, i was having mic issues earlier. good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the application before you is a request for a major permit to alter for the property at 1035 howard street designated as a category 2 building under article 11 of the planning code in a mixed use district.

it's a contributing resource within the western soma, historic district listed on the california register and individually eligible through the national register. this property is developed with a three-story reinforced concrete industrial building, constructed in the art deco style of 1930 by architect of the port of san francisco. the building was historically known as the scale building because it was the headquarters of the enscale company. they produced crushed fruit, toppings geared to the ice cream trades. the building is one of the largest and most expressive art deco buildings. the proposal would demolish the shed at the rear of the property and construct a new addition.

the addition will be separated from the building with a horizontal and a perforated metal gate. the store front system will be uncovered and rehabilitated, including the entry on howard street. the entry doors will be replaced with new wood doors and free standing stanchions will be installed in the vestibule. the bui the project also includ establishment of 24,99 square feet of new office use which would function alongside the existing office, p.d.r. and laboratory uses in the building. pursuant to planning code, this commission must find that the project meets the secretary of interior standards and preserves

the historic resource. findings under section 8039 were in a draft motion and the plan prepared by a qualified historic preservation consultant is also available for review as exhibit in your packet. the department has received five letters of support and one letter of opposition to the project from the members of the public. the member of opposition expresses concerns about construction noise and suggests ground floor retail would be a more appropriate use than a private office. the five letters expressed enthusiasm at the restoration of one of the city's best art deco buildings and suggests that the proposal will revitalize the south of market neighborhood. given the overall restorative nature of the proposed work, the fact that the two buildings are not character-defining, the sensitivity of design for the height and definition and the minimal impact by the office

use, staff has determined that the proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article 11 of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. based on the analysis found in the case report, staff, therefore, recommends approval with the following conditions. first, that prior to issuance of the architectural addenda, the project sponsorer shall provide shop drawings for project elements, including but not limited to the replacement windows, glass curtain wall system, howard street entry doors and garage doors for review and approval to preservation staff. second, that as part of the future review of the building permit by the department of building inspection or other city agencies, any required refinements to the project may be reviewed and approved by department preservation staff, particularly if these are required to address building or life safety requirements. and finally, that pursuant to the expanded use controls and

you planning section 8039.b, that allows office use, the historic maintenance plan is to be implemented as long as it remains active. the project sponsor has requested that the draft motion and the first condition of approval be modified to allow the existing deteriorated steel sash windows to be replaced with metal windows matching the existing in terms of configuration and operation as opposed to replaced with steel slash. the department staff recommends that the windows be steel sashed to match the windows. both the project sponsor and the property owner are on the line and will make a short presentation, and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> president hyland: do you

think five minutes will be sufficient for the sponsor? >> there are both the property owner and the sponsor would like to speak, so i will leave it to them. but there are two folks on the line who want to chat. so i defer to you. >> president hyland: okay, when they start, they can let us know if five minutes is sufficient. >> jonas: you've been unmuted. the question to you is, is five minutes sufficient for your presentation? >> yes. i think five minutes should be fine. i think mr. hamilton will be first. >> okay. can we confirm that you can see my screen? >> jonas: we can see the screen. mr. lund berg, your team has five minutes. >> so i'm not sure john hamilton is on. he is representing the

ownership, but i will take over. commissioners, good afternoon. thank you. i'm from lundberg design, we're the architects for this. and frederick knapp is our preservation expert. frederick is available on a chat line that i have, so if you have questions for him, i'm happy to see if he can answer them. the these are pictures of historic of the eng skel building. you can see this was a fascinating building in the south of market area. it was a large food syrup manufacturer who had both their headquarters and their warehouse and laboratories there. took a lot of pride in it. spent a lot of money on the art deco facade and have owned the building the entire history of it until just recently when it was sold to the new ownership

group. here are additional photographs of the existing building. a few things to note. the first is that obviously, the ground floor was removed at some point from the building. there was labor unrest and i believe the 60s, all of those windows were broken and they replaced them with plaster walls, i guess to avoid that from happening again. but, unfortunately not adding much to the streetscape. also, the character of the building changes as it moves down russ street. it goes from what was the architecture of the headquarters, which was art deco to a much more plain concrete industrial sash building that was the warehouse portion of the building. just important to notice that character change does exist within the building.

and something that we want to respond to. we're also showing, i think, the middle bottom photograph shows the boiler building that is being demolished. you can see the edge of the little shed building that is also being demolished. this shows in summary, the big moves of the design here. so the upper metric is the proposal. the lower is the existing. you can see by removing the two small buildings in the rear, it gives us an opportunity to really create, i think, an interesting composition on this project where we can create a reveal between the old and the new, where the new can be a 2020 building and yet respond to the character of the old building through a sort of version of industrial sash and concrete frame, but a much larger

proportions, somewhat larger scale and yet try to keep the scale of all of it so it's working together. we're restoring the windows along the ground level. and making some changes to the facade in that we're removing some of the rollup doors, introducing steel sash back into there. sort of trying to combine the loading dock into one spot which would be in the new building and better serve the central floor for the entire project. just another shot. more from howard street showing a particular -- in particular the fen straigs on the ground and how the howard street entry

will be reinvigorated. next slide. here's the rendering of the proposal. showing, again, i think, in particular, the howard street facade, how the new windows on that elevation respond to the clear-story windows which were left, weren't replaced. so we picked up the modulation of that and in doing so created a pattern of industrial sash that is intentionally somewhat larger from the old one, to clearly define it as being new and yet quite compatible. next slide. important to note on the building is the industrial sash. the industrial sash is one of the big character-defining aspects of this building. we've seen buildings where these windows have been replaced with unfortunate choices.

it's our choice to make sure that where we need to replace these windows, we replace them with something that has very similar proportions to what was there originally in terms of the profile of the window system. hap happily, there are a lot of new window systems. >> jonas: that is your time. >> well, we have a few rehn -- rendering left. this shows the reveal between the old and the new as will the subsequent one. next slide. this is the rear. i'll take one quick moment here. one of my favorite characteristics of the old building was this notch in the back of it that allowed light to get into the laboratory area. and so we picked up on that gesture for our design of the

new portion of the building, which allowed, again, this notch to come into the back of the building, creating light and space between our design and the neighbor's. here's a rendering of the new entry to the project. that concludes my presentation. >> jonas: very good. commissioners, we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star and 3 to be entered into the queue. i see no members of the public requesting to speak. the public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> president hyland: great, thank you. commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: yes, thank you. i'm very impressed with this project. i think the addition to the building -- let me just start by saying, you know, i know this area very well. i worked on projects around

here. and not one now, so i didn't have to recuse myself. and i've always looked at this building. it's really one of the most interesting of the industrial buildings in this entire area. so i am very appreciative of the work being done to kind of resurrect this building to be an active participant in the soma neighborhood. i think the addition is very successful in the separation. you know, the form-making of the building really allows the existing building to read entirely -- almost as if it's not touched at all, it's not changed at all. and then the architecture of the addition, i think, also is sensitive to being very compatible, but still contemporary. i think my only comment would be

that i think the glass curtain wall might be too simple. you know, that kind of glass with virtually no mullions, no patterns is pretty much nonexistent. so maybe take a look at adding some mullions to it. it does address the 2020 edition that is significantly different from the original. -- addition that is significantly different from the original. overall, i think this is a great project and i certainly would vote to approve this. >> president hyland: great. thank you. commissioner so? >> commissioner so: i love this neighborhood and thank you for giving the really good presentation from monica and the

project sponsor. i don't really have any issues with the fen separations, i think it does a good job in terms of echoing the art deco prototype of the industrialize. i am curious why, if this has gone through a.r.c. review or not? how do we anticipate which project will go through a.r.c. before coming to the full commission and other projects don't? it's an overall question, but in general, i support this project. >> president hyland: thank you, commissioner so. i think it's really a question to your question of what goes before the a.r.c. or not, i think it's really a conversation between the project sponsor and

staff. and if there are issues that are challenging to address, then it may come before the a.r.c., but a project like this, i think, you know, for the most part going to the a.r.c. may not have been necessary. >> that is something we discussed but try to keep to larger ceqa. buildings that are infill, new construction in historic districts or are sort of separate buildings located on the same lot as a historic landmark building. so in this case, we also kind of felt that the addition was sensitively designed from the beginning in terms of massing and a light touch on the

building, so we felt that a.r.c. might just be sort of a delay in the process, given that, you know, the things that needed to be worked out were just details, not necessarily the intent of the project. so the short answer is that it just depends on the scope of work more or less. but we do as staff work with management and the project sponsor to make the decision. >> commissioner so: thank you, monica. i wish there was better transparency or procedural guidance that everyone among the commission and also in the general public could have a road map to ascertain the project likelihood or unlikelihood of going through a.r.c. it's a general question, because i see this as not much different

than what was presented in front of us at the a.r.c. two weeks ago. similar size and scale. this one actually added quite a bit of height in its massing. and also carry along pretty much like one-third of the block. so i'm referring to the project that came in front of us in the a.r.c. that is an addition and adding more building behind it. a restaurant. so it's something that i just wanted to get myself or get my other fellow commissioners, maybe you already acclimate to what projects go where. but i, myself, we could have a little bit more discussion and dialogue with this one, but then what was -- who got lucky and -- you know?

[laughter] i'm just curious. maybe we can -- anyway, maybe we can have another chat about this. it's just try to be consistent and make sure that our city -- get a better understanding of what will go where and how long. but i applaud the project and thank you for revitalizing this neighborhood. it's much needed. >> thank you, commissioner. i don't think any project is required to go to the a.r.c. and i think it's the projects that would benefit from having further dialogue with the commissioners in refining the design. so when you have a project like this that we have before us now that usually may not have benefitted the project. it might have, but there weren't

any sticky wickets in the design that needed to ferret out a better solution. so that being said, the planning commission can also recommend any of the projects before them come before the a.r.c. so our a.r.c. is open to projects even that respect in our purview. but if there is a benefit to the a.r.c., the project sponsor can benefit from that and then the process. so it's more of an optional beneficial process. >> commissioner so: absolutely. thank you. president hyland, i definitely agree with that. only if it will -- only if the project will render beneficial for the a.r.c. review should the staff recommend, encourage the project sponsor to take that route. i just want to have a better

understanding that what project could be benefit or what not. and what is the procedure to lend to that conclusion internally. >> president hyland: true. >> commissioner so: do you go through the -- well, we can -- i'm getting into the weeds of things. monica, you will talk to someone in the process, talk to rich. >> do you want to pipe in? >> i am more than happy to chime in. i think obviously we, you know, we love our a.r.c. and we want to make sure we're affording the appropriate review for all of our projects. in most cases, we consider infill new construction as something that is required to go to the a.r.c. just because of the distinctions in the design.

for additions, it's based on how clear they're meeting the standards or not. in this instance, i think, 1035 howard, it was very evident amongst the staff that this is a very compliant project. and that the work that might needed to have occurred, we felt confident at the staff level. for other instances that we brought forward, it's usually where there is a question in mind based on past interpretations or actions that the commission might have taken. for example, on the one that you recently saw at 135 townsend, usually a larger mass on top of a smaller building is something that is questionable, but we always look at the district, the context, the actions, the --

commission has taken in the past. we felt confident that the designer had done a good job of meeting the intent of article 11 as well as the secretary of interior standards, so we didn't feel that we needed to add on additional layer for a.r.c. >> thank you. >> did you want to add to the conversation? >> no, actually, i did want to respond to the question about the conditions, about the metal versus steel. now, i'm curious, in reference to the replacement windows on the street level of the existing building? >> so, thank you for the question. this is in response to a request made sort of recently in the last few days from the project sponsor team to just alter that wording. my understanding is that it will

apply to any windows that need to be replaced. it is certainly possible and i know that there has been a project in the past where there was a combination of steel sash at ground level and then different materials, aluminum sash, for example, but for the purposes of the condition as written in the packet, it does say replacement of steel sash windows with steel sash windows. and i think the sponsor is requesting flexibility. i will defer to the sponsor if they want to speak more. >> just make a comment about that. if it's in an arrangement that they're all consistent, like all of the ground-floor windows and they have this similar profile. then that's very appropriate. i'm concerned that because of the fact that the steel sash is

the predominant material on this entire building really. you have a whole line of windows and then one of them is slightly different. so i think in that case, in the upper windows, there would be, i think that would be architecturally visible and kind of noticeable as a mistake. as opposed to the consistency where -- and even on the russ street side where the garage doors are being replaced. maybe all of those, again, on the ground floor could be the metal sash. the metal -- yeah, metal sash as opposed to steel. but i would be reluctant to, you know, have one of all those upper windows be different. so i can -- you know, i agree with that condition. as long as it's implemented in a clear and concise way.

>> if i may -- sorry. we could certainly put in language regarding consistency of the pattern if that would help? >> yeah, that would make it very supportable. >> project sponsor? >> yeah. >> go ahead. you can have a minute. >> great. i just wanted to say that i completely agree with commissioner pearlman. the windows, all of the steel sash will need to be removed because they were cast into the concrete and they're the major reason for the deterioration of the concrete. so we will remove them all, assess them as to their viability in terms of being rebuilt. and then come up with a strategy that we of course proposed to staff and staff will have to approve it. i would completely agree. i wouldn't want to have a facade that had a patchwork of some

new, some old. but because we're pulling all the windows, we'll be able to determine how many good windows we have and then we'll come up with approach for replacing them, say, all the original steel sash might go on the howard street facade, but we don't have enough to do russ street. russ street, we would then shift to a new metal sash system. but i want to reinforce the fact that i'm a huge fan of industrial sash. i want to make sure that the proportions we choose for the new windows look as close as possible to the old ones. it would be my hope that once you looked around a corner, they might be different, but then you wouldn't actually notice it. you probably would notice it if one is next to the other one, though. so we have to be careful of that, but i completely support your point there. >> i'm just asking for consistency. and i trust the staff to review

that with the project sponsor. >> president hyland: i would add that i'm a little more reluctant to give the flexibility. i would prefer where there is existing steel sash, those existing steel sash windows remain. it's been my experience that they are actually pretty resilient and the restoration of them can be accomplished. where we've had them removed already at the ground floor, that might be an area where they don't exist anymore, so we have to put something back and that would be an area we could have flexibility with the design and what that new piece -- that new additional window, the new window. if there is a window on one of the two main facades, that does end up needing to be replaced, if there perhaps is one on russ

street that could be relocated, that's appropriate way to do it. but i don't know what we're actually -- are we suggesting that we alter the staff's condition of approval or not? i would prefer we leave it as it is. >> i actually agree with that, commissioner hyland, that the other thing we could look at, if there are only a few steel sash windows that are so damaged that they can't be replaced, that maybe those should be replaced with steel to the same proportions. you know, the same design. you know, the idea that we're only going to have half of them, so we'll put them on the howard street side and take them away from the russ side, that doesn't make sense to me. so i think that, you know,

monica is going to have to get from the project sponsor what number are we talking about. but i agree that anything that can be, should be restored and then anything replaced, if it's only a handful, then they should be the matching steel sash. then at the ground floor, they can absolutely be different because that is the compatible but different -- you know, for something that doesn't exist anymore. >> my apologies, commissioner foley. would you like to speak now? >> commissioner foley: thank you, president. i want to say, i moved to san francisco in 1987 and started doing work in south of market. i always loved this building. i think it's fabulous. i have a lot of faith in the project sponsor and the architect from the previous work done that they will do a spectacular job on the building and brought a design to it and i

appreciate the other commissioners working with them on it to make sure all these elements are done well. i have total faith in the project architect and the developer on what they're doing here. pretty amazing. thank you very much. >> president hyland: commissioner johns? >> commissioner johns: so, commissioner so says she felt this neighborhood could really benefit from this project. i think this project could really benefit from a motion to approve the staff recommendation, which i make. >> second. >> president hyland: [laughter]. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners. so if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions -- i don't believe there were any amendments. we were adopting -- we were

approving this with the conditions as written. on that motion, commissioner foley? >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner pearlman: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> commissioner matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. >> jonas: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 8 for case number 2020-8397, 2868 mission street. this is a request to adopt a resolution. staff, are you prepared to present? >> yes. thank you, jonas. can you hear me? >> jonas: we can. >> okay. great thank you. good afternoon. planning department staff. before you is a national register nomination for mission

cultural center, 2868 mission street. the nomination was prepared by lammers and rhonda on the behalf of san francisco heritage. in its capacity as a certified local government, the city and county of san francisco is given opportunity to comment on nominations. any comments from this commission will be then forwarded to the state office of historic preservation. mission cultural center is located on the west side of mission street between 24 and 25th street. this commercial building was constructed in 1947 and convert nod the mission cultural center in 1977. the center continues to operate in this location. the subject property was also placed on the commission landmark designation work program in 2016. and the department does anticipate moving forward with landmark designation following the property's national register

listing. according to the national register nomination, mission cultural center is significant under criteria a. and with along with the development of latino arts in san francisco and association with california's latino cultural center movement of the 1970s. a period of significance would be 1977 to 1984. the nomination also states that mission cultural centimeters the requirements of -- -- for properties that have achieved significance. staff agrees that the property meets criteria consideration g. staff requests that the commission review the national

register nomination and provide comments on whether mission cultural centimeters the criteria. staff has provided the commission with a draft resolution recommending the nomination subject to revisions of the draft nominations consisting of, one, providing additional information about murals that are located in the first floor lobby. and also providing the building -- a list of the building's character-defining features in the building description. since the staff report was sent, the department has also received a letter of strong enthusiastic support for the national register nomination of mission cultural center from supervisor ronen. if it hasn't already, this letter will be forwarded to the commission as well as included in the department's transmittal to the state district preservation officer. the authors of the nomination are also here and they have

prepared a presentation on the nomination which is why i am not showing you any pictures. that concludes my presentation unless you have any questions. thank you. >> president hyland: thank you. should we take public comment on this? >> how about they present first? >> jonas: yeah. >> president hyland: my apologies, that's right. >> jonas: five minutes, commissioners? >> good afternoon members of the commission. it's wonderful to join you virtually today. thank you for the opportunity to present the national register nomination for the mission cultural center building located in the heart of san francisco's mission district. and part of the cultural

district. we coauthored this nomination. we will be co-presenting today on behalf of san francisco heritage, the project sponsor. first, i'd like to provide a little background for the genesis of the project and acknowledge all those involved. between 203 and 2014, when on staff at san francisco heritage, the california office of historic preservation invited us to participate on an advisory board for the latino in california documentation form. the goal of the initiative is to increase the number of places associated with latinx history on the national register. in a state that has long been home to people of latin descent, there are still few properties designated for their latino history.

the latino mpds was completed in 2015 and signed by the keeper of the national register that april. soon after, the california office of historic preservation distributed eight grants to prepare nominations for historic properties associated with latinx history throughout california. next slide. here's one of the sites. theater in fresno which was listed in 2017. nominated locations included the city of fresno, riverside, los angeles, san francisco, with s.f. heritage receiving one of the grants. those grants were made possible with funding from the national park services underrepresented community grants. next slide. several of the properties such as the pan american bank in los angeles have been listed since

2015. it's listed -- the cultural building will become the first san francisco property listed through this initiative. this slide shows the partners that were involved with choosing the cultural center specifically. we chose the mission cultural center building for its significance which jonathan will delve into further, but we did talk to the latino historical society and partners with s.f. heritage on the context statement for san francisco. we also consulted with the executive director of mission cultural center for latino arts and staff of the san francisco arts commission. that summarizes the project's genesis. at this point, i'll hand it over to jonathan who will discuss the

historic significance. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is jonathan. i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak and i'm honored to present on this national registered nomination. jonas, i was led to believe we might have a little more time, so i'm hoping you can be indulgent. i'd like to talk a bit about why this building is significant. it was created during the period of rich cultural development and political activism. it sprang from contributions by local latino artists, dancers, musicians, writers and other community members. however, its creation is intrinsically tied to a long chain of events that resulted in the mission district becoming the latino enclave. i try to briefly describe how and why the mission cultural center came to be. after the gold rush the march of

the city latinos lived in the latin quarter which included italians and migrants from latin america. for spanish speakers, the establishment was the lady of guadalupe church. this area would are emain the -- remain the primary latino enclave, although a smaller enclave developed. [bell ringing] >> by 1930 -- sorry, jonas, could i have extra time? >> that's just the 15. the time will be determined by the chair. i just operate the timer. >> president hyland: i'm sure we can give him another two minutes. >> okay. well, then you'll forgiven me, i was going to talk about the evolution district.

to i will -- >> how much more time do you think you need? >> i think four minutes. >> okay, let's do four then. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your indulgence. beginning in the 1930s, quite a few latinos began moving to the inner mission district. as witnessed by the establishment of numerous store front churches. during the same period, political instability in central america led others to migrate to the bay area. immigration occurred during world war ii, when hundreds of thousands of mexicans arrived. in the 1950s, the latino presence was firmly established with latino serving businesses such as tore tilla factory. likewise, some theaters such as

the roosevelt, are now included spanish language films. this was marked by a number of organizations in san francisco, one of the formative ones was the -- [speaking spanish] -- on 19th street in the mission. it was founded in 1959 with the goal of adequate training and access to employment. during the 1960s. the mission district coalesced for the plans of the neighborhood which led to the coalition of homeowners, clergy and political members, including the latino activists. such as president ben martinez and maria crane. the student movement, the civil rights movement was evidenced by the faculty strike at san francisco state.

the strike was led by the black student union and led to the founding of the first nation of ethnic studies in 1969, including a degree program in mexican american studies. during this period, the latino population of the mission continued to soar and by 1970, 45% of the population was latino. the movement coincided with shifts in the performing arts. here in the 1950s, percussionists performed and drew new attention. latin rhythm sections became foundational for bands such as santana. also led to the formation of other groups. along with the new sounds, latino art washed over the

mission. in no small parts thanks to the murals created by the seminal groups. also sponsored popular processions to the mission. poster art led in part. poets and writers created works in the mission and the latino identity while leading protests against u.s. policies in central america. and it was during this incredible period of political, social and artistic ferment that mission residents lobbied for dedicated spaces to create, train and showcase the neighborhood's artistic output. the furn store was purchased using funding from the san francisco arts commission. volunteers worked to transform the space into the new mission cultural center symbolized by the image of an aztec jaguar.

the stranger is built in the lobby for performances, concerts and literature reading. the area on the second floor was converted into an art gallery. top floor was -- [bell ringing] -- today, mission is one of the most important graphics in the united states. the last part, sorry i run over time. is that the mission cultural center became artwork to itself when artists put a mural of the arts on the building. the defining feature and the central american motifs. so that concludes my presentation.

i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. please forgive me if any of that was boring. [laughter] >> jonas: commissioners, that's concludes project sponsor's presentation. we should open up for public comment. if you wish to speak to the matter, press star and 3 to enter the queue. commissioners, i see no members of the public requesting to speak. so public comment is closed. and the matter is now before you. >> president hyland: commissioner matsuda. >> commissioner matsuda: how nice it is to hear your voices. we miss you. i hope you are well. i think this is a great project. my only comment about this project, this nomination and the other nomination we're going to be discussing today, i really

feel that nominations, especially nominations that generate out of the city and county of san francisco put some faces to it. some visual humans to it. because just because of a very, very -- and i think, desiree, you were around when we had the experience where somebody doubted that a community actually existed in the city. and they doubted it because a national nomination didn't have visuals of people in their particular communities represented. and so i would hate to see a day where we wouldn't have people who would be supporting the mission cultural center, but unfortunately, we have to be proactive and we have to be strong making sure that our ethnic communities remain strong and vital in perpetuity.

i would like to make a suggestion, not just for these nominations, but others, that we put people to it. because people have been really pivotal in kind of riding through the different waves we've gone through and will be going through. that's my only comment. just to thank you for doing such a great job in presenting such a great project to us. >> thank you, commissioner. >> president hyland: commissioner so? >> commissioner so: thank you for the presentation. i actually had the luxury having on the -- serving on the arts commission i actually toured the building myself. i volunteered to check out the buildings one of our arts commission sponsor properties. and thank you, s.f. heritage for

putting together and sponsoring now this building to be nominated for a national registry. i fully support this alongside with the supervisor hillary ronen office. i also do think this project with the actions that the staff recommendation, that take a good look at evaluating the murals. some of them -- i just want to make sure this process do take careful investigations on each of those murals, because it has implications on the further revitalizations or upkeeping of the property itself. and also, this project is a major anchor to the local community. i, myself, live in the mission. and i fancy myself one day i'll have my daughter there for some

of their after-class activities. if we all can get out of this pandemic, right? so i am supportive of this project. take a good look at the mural, the significance of it. and also i agree fully with the staff to clearly define and identify the character-defining features of the building itself. that is, i think, it will make this whole project comprehensive. and thank you for the presentation. i love it. i love that history part. every time i see so much and learn so much from these presentations and history. and it makes me feel like i would like to live here forever. thank you. [laughter] >> president hyland: thank you. commissioner foley. >> commissioner foley: i'm actually really excited both about the presentation and the

building in front of us. so thank you very much for the presentation. i'm 120% behind this whole project. it's awesome. lydia, i agree, hopefully we can all go to the building post covid. >> president hyland: thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> commissioner pearlman: i wanted to say to jonathan, none of us would be on this commission if we found that information boring. it actually is very interesting. for those of us who, you know, have been around a while, there is always surprises. i mean i'm actually working on a project a few blocks away, and we have to put a mural on it. and in my graphics, i took the mural that is on the front of this building just as a place holder because i've always loved that, you know, the mural and the whole appearance of the

building and the intensity of graphics that are typical in the latinx community. so, yeah, i fully endorse this project. and i don't know if i should make a motion, but somebody should to approve this or recommend it for approval. >> president hyland: is that your motion? >> sure. >> motion for approval. >> second. >> let's do it. [laughter] >> jonas: very good. if there is no additional deliberation, there is a motion seconded to adopt a resolution recommending the nomination. on that motion, commissioner foley? >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner pearlman: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> commissioner matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. and thank you, desiree and

jonathan, great to see you both. >> jonas: so moved, that passes unanimously, 6-0. and we'll place us on item 9, case number 2020-8400crv, 535 green street. >> good afternoon, commissioners, san francisco planning department staff. can you hear me okay? >> jonas: we can hear you. not great, but okay. >> and i'd like to share my screen? is the presentation visible? >> jonas: i don't see it.

let me try it one more time. >> jonas: there you go. >> great, thank you. apologies. good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you today is a national register nomination for the sausage factory at 535 green street. the nomination was prepared. the city and county of san francisco is giving the opportunity to comment on the nominations for the national register of historic places. any comments of the commission will be forwarded to the office. the sausage factory is on the south side of the green street between grant avenue and columbus avenue. it's a two story reinforced

concrete building with a flat roof. recessed central sections composed of double height, window wall. a short projecting -- [inaudible] -- with diagonal, red white and green color striping, suggestive of the italian national flag. it is finished in stucco. the circular neon sign is located on the east side. according to the national register nomination, the sausage factory is locally significant under criteria a in the area of commerce, for association with commercial development in the north beach neighborhood in the history of the neighborhood's italian community early 20th century. a period of significance is 1948 to 1978, encompassing the year the factory was in property.

it's eligible for listing on the national register as a local area of significance in the area of architecture, as a work of master architect martin j.rist. the department also agrees that the property is locally significant under cry attorney c. the property appears eligible for listing on the local level with the pizza and the successful entrepreneur who

founded the company in the early 20th century. he commissioned the construction of 535 green street and operated the sausage street on the subject property for nearly three decades. he made significant contributions to the italian community in north beach, with the specialty foods and the long-running operation of the factory. the nomination -- additional comments of the nomination benefits and brief overview of the architecture and international style, including the details on the architecture in san francisco provide additional context for the significance of the design. nominations further benefits from the inclusion of the subject property. and lastly, the section of the nomination form, a few quotations that are not fairly distinguished. to clarify the sections, the department recommends the nomination form be revised to

allow the reader to understand the material. there is no known opposition to the listing of the property as a national register. and the commission has received two letters of support for the nomination. staff requests the commission review the nomination and provide comments. the commission may recommend the nomination, not recommend the nomination or recommend the nomination to provide. the resolution is -- [inaudible] this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions you have. i will give the presentation over to catherine now for a brief overview. >> let me unmute her.

you have five minutes. >> terrific. thank you so much, jonas. can you hear me okay? >> jonas: just fine, thank you. >> terrific. so good afternoon, commissioners. i'm really pleased to introduce the commission to the sausage factory. as francis mentioned, it was built in 1948 and designed by master architect martin reece. it is nominated to the historic places. and has been supported by a grant from the san francisco heritage and the ellis ross preservation fund. as an industrial structure, the factory operated as a meat production facility from 1948 to

1978. and it remains an intact representative example of the international style. as we see in the slide, the building is located in the northeast quadrant of san francisco. next slide. the building is located in north beach at 535 green street in the center of the commercial area of the neighborhood. the building is a contributor to the upper grant avenue historic district. so designated in 1982. it is a california register eligible district and it also includes this stretch of green street between grant and columbus avenues. this is a view from the west looking east and you can see n

gustio. i threw in this historic view of the same block looking west to east. it dates to 1936. and it predates the construction of the sausage factory, but it does indicate the prevailing character of the neighborhood, which is much as it is today. the only major change looking at this side of the street is the building on the far left, which is now very distinctive 1962 bank building at the corner of green and columbus. so back to the factory. it's eligible under cry tooern a as a facility that produced italian specialty foods in north beach of the factory is directly associated with the commercial development of the area, as well as the history of the italian community in the 20th century.

they were important in maintaining an italian culinary presence in the neighborhood after world war ii. if we have more time, i would love to delve into the history of sausage-making in north beach. there are many, many different producers who followed a real pattern of development of italian-born immigrants coming to this area, starting small, and then over the centuries evolving into more corporate entities that are still present today. it's a really fascinating story. and it's included in the nomination if you have a chance to read it. so the factory was built by owner fred rico in 1948. it was capable of processing 25,000 pounds of italian salami

a week. this is remarkable, because prior to world war ii, north beach sausage and salami were small operations where meats were made in the basements of italian grocery stores. but he had grander ambitions. he intended to sell his products across the nation and he eventually did. he was born in italy in 1895 and immigrated to the u.s. in 1920, arriving, in his words, penniless. he is representative of many italian born immigrants to contributed to the italian community in the last century. this image comes from 1941 newspaper article where he was profiled as a genuinely nice guy. unfortunately, we don't have historic interior images, which was cutting edge using german

and modern techniques. for contrast, we show this typical view of sausage-making operations. the building is also eligible under criterion c for architectural merit and martin rist. though the character is utill ontarian. are we at five minutes? >> jonas: that's five minutes. >> okay. could i just take a couple of -- i'm almost done. another 30 seconds? thanks. so, just a word about rist. he designed many notable buildings in san francisco during a 50-year career. and those include the university ladies mound home which is san

francisco landmark number 269. lincoln high school, west portal lutheran church, st. mercy high school, art deco ward at general hospital. so to conclude, together with its clean lines, architectural detail and high level of integrity, this factory remains a distinct landmark in north beach. it's the last vestige of the sausage making trade and it remains a tangible link to the italian heritage. thank you for your consideration and for the extra 30 seconds. if there are any questions, i'm happy to answer them, but i'll turn it back to francis. >> that concludes our presentation. if you have any questions, we're happy to answer.

>> jonas: great. if there are no immediate questions for staff, we should go to public comment. again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star 3 to submit your testimony. and i do have two -- four requests to speak. so members of the public, you will have three minutes. >> good afternoon, folks. my name is stan hayes. i'm the president of the telegraph field. thank you for letting me appear here. i want to express our strong support for the register nomination. columnist carl loafy once wrote, of all san francisco special places, north beach remains at the heart of the city. we couldn't agree more.

north beach is the heart of san francisco. a heart that beats with historic places like this. this is a building well documented by historian catherine pet rehn. and the history of the italian community there. this is a building that has been determined to be a contributor to the california register eligible grant avenue historic district. this is a building that is locally significant under multiple national register criteria. they initiated this effort to prepare and submit this nomination to the state office with a grant provided by san francisco heritage. we enthusiastically agree with the state office's conclusion that "the nomination makes a great case for listing the

sausage factory in the national register". we appreciate and we strongly agree with staff's recommendation that you forward the resolution to the state office recommending approval of this nomination and the national register of historic places. please support this nomination. thank you. i am the owner of the property, the buon gusto. i think it's a wonderful structure. i continue to keep it, repurpose the interior space. just for the record, i won't be

making sausages in there. i also want to use the undeveloped eastern part of the lot, currently a parking lot. that will provide affordable housing, market-rate housing under the state density program. i cannot weigh in on the merits of this nomination and want to go -- i want to go on record that the authors of this nomination did not do me the courtesy of alerting me to the nomination or asking me my opinion. i just learned of the hearing yesterday. i have an application under review by the planning department at this time to secure support from the state density bonus mixed use addition alteration project. consistent with this historic

resource and the secretary of interior standards. this nomination coming at it this time has -- stop the development. and for the record, i'm -- i have something in common with the original order. i came to san francisco penniless and i'm an immigrant. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> jonas: go ahead, caller. >> hello, are you able to hear me? >> jonas: we are. >> my name is emily. i am a member of an architectural team that is currently working with this site. i'm just calling to provide context and information regarding this building. as the previous caller mentioned, we were unaware that

this nomination had been made until very recently. i want to let you know that this site, including the vacant parking lot that is adjacent to it, was submitted tore planning review over two years ago to build multibuilding housing. 94% of the units proposed are two and three-bedroom units intended for families to live in the neighborhood and the presentation to a neighborhood group one year ago almost exactly in october received good feedback and a lot of support. most importantly we really appreciate and enjoy the existing building and the proposed multiple family housing design as approached integration of the 535 green street building very conservatively. it proposes to reserve and restore the existing building as experienced by the public, including all of its exterior facade walls. the existing building has been vacant for decades and our

project proposes to renew, repair and revise the building for the neighborhood to enjoy. given these conditions, i'm also just concerned that the nomination is simply an attempt to antagonize and prevent housing from being built, since our proposal highlights the existing building. so we take that into corporation -- please take that into consideration while deliberating. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. this is woody bounty from san francisco heritage. we naturally support this nomination. and with all our hearts, actually. it's a standout building in design by martin rist. it's standout in the use.

it's a sausage factory. and italian life in north beach. i think catherine did a great job addressing commissioner matsuda's remarks in the last, that you have people front and center. you have a lot of information about him and his family and the sausage-making he did in north beach. heritage asked the commission to adopt a resolution recommending nomination to the state's historical resource commission. and thank you for hearing this. >> jonas: members of the public, again this is your opportunity to enter the queue by pressing star and 3. commissioners, i see no additional members of the public requesting to speak. so public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> president hyland: commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. one of the great advantages of

us being on zoom or webex calls, while the architect was speaking, i was able to go to the planning website and download the drawings of the proposed project. so i am curious, a question for ms. mcmillan, would this nomination somehow derail the project as i think the owner had said? >> no. and i -- i'll just point out there are a couple of staff members who are also can answer questions about the project specifically. but this would -- this would just -- the building has already been determined to be a resource. so this would not have additional consequences, but again, i would defer to the

others here that are available to answer questions as far as the ceqa review or the determination that they've made significant to this building as part of that process. >> president hyland: any follow-up? >> commissioner pearlman, if i could just pipe in. we have a local landmarks, we have maybe -- we're getting -- did you want to speak to this? >> preservation staff, i'm reviewing the project for preservation impacts under ceqa. i would just add to what ms. mcmillan said, there are a lot of different variables that are still in play. we have not yet made a

determination regarding the project to the historic resource. but that if it is determined that the project is not result in impacts to the california registry eligible historic resource, that finding would also apply to the potential -- or at this point, the national register listed. >> commissioner pearlman: i'd like to -- you know, i have concerns about this. let me start from the beginning. the first thing that i think is funny, is that mr. buckley, the irishman, has purchased this building so representative of the italian community. but i really appreciate what he said about the fact that he is similar to the original owner and builder of this building. you know, an immigrant and had

bootstrapped his way up in san francisco by developing properties. so i appreciate the relationship. i also -- like i said, i was able to pull up the drawings and you know, there is a significant amount of housing that is being developed, but it does appear that the -- you know, at least the street facade and parts of the side facades, you know, are still very present in that design. so i would just -- i totally support this as a national register nomination and i'm hoping that, you know, since it was already considered a historic resource, that there wouldn't be any significant loss of housing because of the -- because all of a sudden it becomes somehow more valuable in a way that would diminish the ability to add housing here.

so i am supportive of this. but i do want to let the owner know that, you know, i think that the design is -- again, no one is looking at this -- but it's a good design relative to retention of the historic resource. so i'm hoping that the department will find that to be the same. so thank you. >> if i could add on what i was going to say, commissioner pearlman. the evaluation is really the same. it's a local landmark that has come before us for compatibility and the secretary of the interior standards as a state or national landmark. it would just be a ceqa evaluation at the staff level. but the evaluation is still the same and the impacts will be

evaluated in a similar way. >> commissioner pearlman: i want that to be clear to the owner. that you know, it's not all of a sudden this becomes a national registered building, so, therefore, they can't develop the property is not the fact. so the amount of attention to its historic nature is really no different. so i just wanted to -- because you know, we heard this from the owner and the architect. so i wanted that clarity to be out on the table. >> president hyland: any other comments from other commissioners? a motion with one of the options? >> i think lydia wanted to speak. >> commissioner so: yes, i do, thank you for seeing my raising my hand. this is very -- project. we're all on zoom.

may i ask, francis, whether the registration going to have it nationally registered includes the parking lot. because it seems like the project, property owner and his architect, the proposal is the majority of their work is on the parking lot. i think there is a way to have these things co-exist. that's what i wanted to get to. >> yes, it includes the whole lot, the nomination. yeah, so that would be included in the nomination. again with respect to the project, this is the purpose of the hearing is to review the national register nomination. we were trying to focus on that and the discussions and not get into details of the project, but i understand the property owner's concern in what impact

the nomination may have, but again the focus on the hearings is just review and comment on the nomination itself. >> commissioner so: when the property owner itself has spoken up and it just seems to be a bit challenging to not actually hear all sides and to make sure that we got -- we have a conscientious effort into this. i appreciate you qualifying. the reason we only look at one sided issue instead of the whole package. appreciate that, though. >> commissioner pearlman: i had a quick follow-up question. you know, for a project that has been around for a couple of years already, i find it very

strange that the owner is saying that they just found out about this nomination a couple of days ago. and i don't know who should have been communicating with the project sponsor, because certainly this has been going on for quite a while. so it seems -- certainly, you know, if i were a property owner i would be quite surprised that this whole action was happening and i have no idea about it. so ms. mcmillan, were there efforts from the department to reach out to the property owner? >> well, we received the nomination from the california office of historic preservation. so they had been -- we thought they would have notified the owner as part of their process for a pending national registry nomination. again, since this was review and comment on the nomination and

guidance to reach out further to the property owners to ensure they've been notified of pending nominations, but again, this was not a department-generated nomination. i thought the property owner would have been aware this was under way. >> i would just ask that an organization like the telegraph hill dwellers should have the respect of the property owners to reach out from the beginning. because the kind of conflict that comes up between property owners and, in this case, developers and neighborhood groups, that become these escalated little battles between development and historic preservation, gives historic -- it's a black eye to the preservation side of things if the public thinks that, you know, there are neighborhood groups just sneaking in there and trying to stop a project.

it would be my request to the telegraph hill dwellers and other neighborhood group that isn't from the planning department, to include the property owner in the process of doing all this work to get something nominated either locally or on a national level. thanks. >> commissioner foley: yeah, this is actually my neighborhood. i really like that building. i think it's great. for the project sponsor and architect, the nice thing for the register is they're eligible for a tax break. it's a great building. i support the nomination. >> thank you for that, commissioner foley. i forgot about the tax credit.

that might be something the applicant might want to pursue if they hadn't thought of that. okay. i think -- >> i'll make a motion. to adopt to recommend the nomination. >> second. >> jonas: seeing no further deliberation, this is a motion seconded to adopt a resolution on the nomination on the motion, commissioner foley? >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner pearlman: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> commissioner matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that will take us to our final item on today's ajeopardized. number 10, 2019-21884env.

2500 mariposa street. this is a draft environmental impact report and your opportunity to review and comment on the preservation alternatives. is staff prepared to present? >> yes. >> item before you is the review of the comments of the

alternative that will be explored in the draft. a range of alternatives need to be explored that can accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project, as well as avoiding lessening of one or more of the significant effects of the project. this item does not require approval, but is an opportunity for the commissioners to provide comments to the alternatives presented. the site at 2500 mariposa street is located in the mission neighborhood and is approximately 4.4 acre site. located between mariposa and 17th street to the north and south, and brandon to the west and east. it contains. potrero trolley coach division maintenance and operations and serves as a location for a

number of work stations along the perimeter. the building on the site is outlined in yellow. the building itself, is reinforced concrete facility. the rear portion of the building is the shop. the office wing comprises the primary facade of the building that faces mariposa street. the ground floor includes wide openings for vehicular entrances and the main pedestrian entrance. the building is clad in stucco, flat roof and plaster on mentation. a change in the height along the

elevation is where the office wing meets the maintenance wing. there is a photo of the hampshire street elevation. and finally, a photo showing the parking lot from the corner of 17th and bryant street that covers half the site and contains bus parking along with the work stations. the building was constructed in 1915 and was originally a car barn later enlarged two stories in 1924 with construction of the second floor that included the office wing along with two additional maintenance shops. the building was designed to the renaissance revival style. it was muni second purpose secrete car barn. it was built to provide -- in

1948, the car barn was converted to house and maintain buses rather than street cars. 2500 mariposa street is individually eligible for listing in the california register under criterion one dating back to the early years of the san francisco municipal railway. the building is also eligible under the criterion 3 of the car buying and the work of the master architect. the character defining features of the site are the remaining portions of the original shop along hampshire street. the concrete and cement plaster ornaments. the hampshire street facade. the door trim on the westernmost vehicular bay on mariposa street. the windows on the office wing, along with the flag pole.

in discussing the proposed project, i just wanted to identify some of the basic project objectives along with the additional project objectives. key elements include expanding the site's capacity to house and maintain sfmta's growing fleet of buses including adding additional infrastructure to house battery buses. some of the objectives include maximizing density on the site. the proposed project with the existing bus storage yard and maintenance and operations building and replace them with a new approximately 75 to 100 foot structure with over a million square feet in footage. the structure would almost cover the entire vehicle lot. the new structure would contain a new replacement transit facility and incorporate residential and corporate uses.

the new facility would accommodate 310 parking spaces, of which 213 would be for buses, along with 18 bus maintenance bays and 575 residential units. for the most part, the materials and design details of the project have not been -- beyond the requirements that dictated the envelope of the new building. some of the site constraints revolve around the turning buses that expected to be housed in the facility. the bays and parking spaces for buses required by sfmta planning. other considerations is reducing some dough on the neighbor -- shadow on the neighboring franklin street park meaning that the rest of the block has been shifted toward mariposa street. as you can see from the elevation, the podium contains the transit facility and will have three transit levels, along with a portion of the joint

development. residential floors would also rise above the podium level of the transit facility showed here as floors 7-13. because of the proposed project requires demolition within the facility, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. alternatives to reduce the impacts are being explored. in developing the alternatives, planning staff worked with sfmta to identify character defining features of the site while meeting the project objectives. some of the site constraints that factored, including the turning radius of the buses as well as the general space requirements for the facility to accommodate the sfmta fleet. in the course of developing the alternative, we were not able to identify any potentially feasible alternative that could preserve more of the existing resource and meet most of the basic project objectives.

the alternatives we did identify was the feasible, including a note project alternative, a full alternative. the no project alternative would retain the existing facility and have less significant impact but would not meet the basic objectives of the project. i wanted to give you a slide comparison showing some of the key numbers of the proposed project. as you can see, the proposed project includes bus and parking spaces for 213 buses as compared with the full preservation alternative that would accommodate 173 bus parking spaces. and the partial preservation alternative that would accommodate 207 bus parking. the proposed project would accommodate 18 maintenance bays for buses, but the full and partial would only accommodate 17 bays. and while the proposed project

would build 575 units of housing, the full and partial will build 455 housing units. so looking at the full preservation alternatives in a little more detail. the new construction would be shifted to -- along with a 255 section along hampshire street. no vertical addition. the bus podium level retain portion of the building would incorporate a notch to reveal the option of the building. the bus facility podium level would be set back from the mariposa property line by 75 feet and from the hampshire street elevation by 15 feet. the upper floors of the residential zone would be set back from the bus facility podium by another 10 feet.

in the full preservation alternative, the majority of the character defining features would be retained, including the height and massing. however, the height and massing of the hampshire street elevation would only be partially retained. in the aerial of the full preservation, you can see the massing links the retained portion of the building. this alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives, but the transit facility storage space would be reduced and only have 173 bus parking spaces, 455 units of housing and 17 housing bays. similar to the full preservation alternative, the entire two-story of the building would be retained, but the remainder of the building beyond the office would be demolished. there would still be no vertical

addition above the office. the bus facility podium level, retain portion of the office wing, but incorporate a 10 by 30 notch and the 5 by 10 notch. upper floors would be set back by 20 feet from the podium level of the bus facility. the partial preservation alternative would retain some of the character-defining features of the site. most notably, the masking. however, the hampshire street elevation would be mostly demolished. transit space would be reduced and accommodate 207 bus parking space, 17 maintenance bays and 455 units of housing. in exploring the range of alternatives that reduce impacts and met the basic project

objectives, they explored the feasibility of the structure. due to the transit requirements as part of the project objective, we determined it would not meet the basic project. under one approach, explored the subjected property would be demolished with the exception of the two-story along mariposa street and that around hampshire street. the new building upper floors would be set back 10 feet from the retained portion of the building. this approach would allow the project to be built largely as proposed, but would not limit the project's impact because it would not have maintained any sense of volume.

the project sponsor explored number of setbacks to reduce visibility of the new construction. three different setbacks from hampshire street were looked at. pointed out by the red arrow. ultimately, the department and the project sponsor determined that these further setbacks from hampshire street would limit the functional effectiveness of the bus ramps from the second and third level of the transit facility, further reducing its capacity. sfmta explored the possibility of reducing the bus ramps or modifying the locations, but it was not possible because the ramps were already approaching the maximum slopes given the size of the site. sfmta also explored further reducing the bus and other parking spaces to accommodate a different bus circulation pattern, but the further reduction in capacity would not

be considered feasible that still met most of the basic project objectives. therefore, the full preservation approach was not explored further. so this ends my presentation. i know the city who is representing sfmta would also like to speak. >> before we do that, justin, and i apologize for the interruption. but i have just been notified that commissioner foley needs to be recused from this matter. commissioner foley, did you want to explain why. >> commissioner foley: i own land -- [inaudible] -- i own 850 bryant, which is across the street. the electric building.

>> jonas: commissioners, do i hear a motion? >> i make a motion to recuse commissioner foley from the item. >> second. >> jonas: on that motion then, to recuse commissioner foley, commissioner foley? >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner black: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> commissioner matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. >> jonas: commissioner foley, you are hereby recused and don't forget to fill out the form. would the member of the sfmta like to make their presentation? >> yes, please. >> is five minutes enough time? >> plenty. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the campus planning manager

at the sfmta. and also the project manager for the project. jointly with my colleague. thank you for the opportunity to speak about the project today as justin mentioned, the potrero open yard anticipated. and the san francisco municipal railway is recognized as the oldest publicly operated transit system in the nation and is steeped in history. we employ historian and photographer and they maintain the treasured photo and document collection. including the photo shelter archives that is available to the public. the project is a much needed bus infrastructure project, the purpose of which is to modernize

the site and improve the sfmta ability to maintain our vehicles, which translates to improved service to our customers. this facility will be the first site equipped for the purpose. we have worked with planning staff over the last few months to develop alternatives suitable for ceqa review to determine how to achieve the project objectives while retaining all or a portion of the building. the alternatives are our best effort. it is difficult, truly on this site to find a path to preservation as the existing buildings form and design do not support a modern maintenance function and inhibit safe practices for our employees. it is important to note that a structural assessment of the building revealed a poor hazard rating. we remain working with the city family to achieve a project that

achieves policy objectives including housing and meets the sfmta's urgent facility needs. thank you for considering our analysis to date. i'm available for questions from the commission. >> president hyland: okay. take public comment, then? >> jonas: indeed, we should. members of the public, this is time to submit your public testimony by pressing star 3. i see no members of the public, so commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> president hyland: commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. these are always so challenging because the big projects that we look at and the objectives, especially with the public

project like this for proper -- you know, the proper development of a site for muni is -- and then it always feels like it's the tail wagging the dog, the small building that is quote, unquote, in the way of a much larger development. i think that these objectives -- i mean project alternatives are reasonable. especially based on some of the comments about the other -- that they had looked at. and i think in this particular case, the partial preservation alternative seems to make much more sense. i think, you know, from the standpoint of use of the building, saving a 15-foot wide

little swat of the maintenance portion of the shop portion of the building, seems like, you know, kind of a meaningless gesture. and given there is no articulation on that facade, this makes a very poor neighbor as a neighborhood that got developed with hundreds of new housing units and would become a much bigger hub in the neighborhood. so of these three alternatives, i would say the partial preservation alternative seems the most appropriate to retain enough of the historic resource to still be recognizable for what it is. because this is -- i mean, you know, the given is that this is what people really see as you walk along the street here. it's not the blank wall as you go up hampshire that people

think of as the bus yard. it's really this other portion, the office portion of the building. so again, i think these alternatives are adequate. and i would favor the partial alternative. thanks. >> president hyland: thank you. commissioner johns. >> commissioner johns: i agree with commissioner pearlman. but i would like to ask the representative from sfmta, seems to me that this facade is very, very similar to the facade of the geary boulevard car barn. i wonder if anybody agrees with that? or am i misremembering something? >> i actually think that the

geary car barn is far more interesting as a building because it

>> i would have to say that i agree with commissioner pearlman's assessment that the partial preservation alternative is probably the pefrd preferred one, keeping the sliver of the building is not beneficial to retaining anything that is significant to the property. but i would say, i'm a little disappointed, because this being a city project, we expect a lot from our developers. and it seems like we propose -- the proposed project was developed in a vacuum. and then the alternatives were assessed by reinserting the historic building and affecting the impact to this proposed

project. there is a huge amount of square area on this site. and to not be able to accommodate the use and the needs, i find really strange. i don't know -- i certainly can't speak to the number of buses and the parking spots and all the technical requirements. but you know, as a city that expects certain stewardship from our own developers, i would have hoped that our city would do the same. i don't think that the actual forms of the additions in either of the preservation alternatives are really taking an earnest look at the potential program that can occur on this. we see a lot of developers come in and they don't want to deal with this historic building, so

they give us this beautiful project that they say can't be accomplished with the historic building back in place, as opposed to using the historic building as a basis in the original design and allowing the new design to kind of evolve from that. so you know, i just have to express my disappointment that we're not walking the walk and walking the talk i guess. that being said, i still think that retaining the -- i don't have much affinity to the building per se. so you know, if it had been a little more of a significant structure, that deserved a little more care and attention. then that would be one thing. but i get a little frustrated

when i don't see the analysis being done in earnest. that's all i have to say, guess. >> commissioner so: yes. i just have to unmute myself. i agree with president hyland. he pointed out something that kind of makes sense to me while staring at these numbers in the report, it doesn't seem to make -- it sort of makes sense, but not really entirely. especially, it seems like it really is an exercise to look at this is what we're proposing, look at these numbers, and then here are the full preservation and look at how much it has dropped. but i would like to challenge, even for example, it's really

unconvincing to me that usable open space square footage would drop that much based on the fully demolished proposal versus these two full preservation or partial preservation. it's like it we're taking this into too much of academic, let's just look at the impact of preservation, instead of actually pushing to bring it into using a conscientious effort to exemplify a design that incorporates historic elements into benefitting the new development. it's tied into pretty much -- i'm looking at these numbers and i'm why do they drop so much? and it makes sense that president hyland brought up the fact that sfmta and the design consultant that you retained has taken to the lens of actually

making some of these numbers which means the design approach, when we need to preserve an element. i would like to challenge that these -- for example, just number of open spaces could have been bigger. i'm looking at the mapping diagrams you're putting together. i've seen some potential you can actually bring the number closer to what your original baseline, which is proposing to demolish everything. i just want to voice my comments backing the point of my fellow commissioners saying with the numbers that you show. somehow, it's not too convincing to me that we -- we could come up with a positive preservation with higher square footages of open space and higher number of

dwelling units and potentially more -- well, you're retaining a lot -- basically, there is no difference in bus parking spaces. but other elements i would like to challenge the team to bring it closer to the mar -- the margins will be closer. it's pretty simple forward step to do if we challenge the project sponsor and the design consultant to have that in place instead of just looking at it as -- look at what we have and if we need to preserve something and here's how much the numbers drop. i mean -- if i would have to pick something right now, i would pick partial preservation as the proposed scenario, but i

would like to put a conditional request that the team has to look into -- there is a way i know you can bring the number closer to the margin just like you did with the number of parking spaces. less than 5% or so. >> president hyland: thank you, commissioner so. you want to respond? >> thank you, commissioners. planning department staff, working with preservation staff. i'm supervising the eir and the respect the commissioner's comments on the challenges that went into developing these alternatives and some of the tradeoffs from those challenges. one of the challenges that justin mentioned in his presentation was where we're at

in the development review phase for this project. maybe he can speak to this more, but we actually -- sfmta doesn't have a developer on board right now. they're going through a developer procurement process. so we're having to develop these alternatives at a conceptual level to provide decision-makers with a reasonable range of alternatives to understand the different impacts. so i just -- i want to bring that up in just noting that we're happy to explore at a staff level variations, but it does create a challenge for mta and we can speak to where they're at with their design team. but it does create challenges for them while trying to procure a developer while coming up with iterations for these alternates. >> okay. >> great, thank you.

thanks, wade. yeah, we are in the middle -- we have released the qualifications for the site and we're doing a two part procurement with a request for proposal early next year. i also just wanted to mention that, you know, the sfmta does have a fixed amount of real estate. our sweet spot for acreage, we would love to have 10 acres or more, but it does not exist in san francisco. we will be as you can see on the presentation that justin gave, building a three story transit facility here. and i just want to note that even absent the existing building, we're already modifying our fleet plan requirements to fit on the site as it is. so really if we were able to

really distribute the service the way we wanted across our six bus facilities in the city, we would be housing on the order of 230 buses here. but that just simply does not fit in three levels. so we're already modifying that and dropping the number of maintenance bays that we wish we could have due to just the geographical limitations of the site itself. so dropping down to 213 buses is really kind of what we see as what we really need to be able to deliver the service that our service plan includes at this time. thank you for the opportunity. >> president hyland: in order to keep the corner building, based on the numbers you're presenting, we're looking at needing to go down to 207. >> yeah. and i think it's true that we

can look to the design of the building when the development team comes formally onboard. i will also say that the setback of the existing building from mariposa street also has an impact on the floor area and the floor area is actually, because of the turning radius of the vehicles and because the design includes bringing circulation ramps inside the building, to move the buses up and down between floors, the outer ring of the interior portion of the transit facility is really critical for us to be able to move the big vehicles around. if you happen to pass this site on a regular basis, you see that we do operate a lot of the 60-foot accordion style buses out of the site. those, we cannot back them up. they're vehicles that move only forward. and so maintaining turning radius for that is of paramount

importance for us. >> president hyland: okay. thank you. i guess, are you going to be -- justin, are you going to be summarizing our comments? do you have enough for us? is there any clarifications? alison? >> good afternoon, department staff. yeah, i just wanted to ask a little bit to make sure we have clarity here. as you know, the resolution that you put together for alternative development for eirs does lay out that we would have a sole preservation alternative and partial preservation alternative. in this case, we did the best we could to meet project objectives and to preserve as much as of the character defining features of the building. what i'm hearing from the

commissioners is that the full preservation doesn't seem like it's working. and that the partial preservation, even though it might not fully reduce impacts is the one that you would prefer us to continue to explore. and i just want to confirm that in this case we would move the full case alternative that justin to a considered and rejected alternative. that means when we bring the draft back to you for review and comment, we would have a partial preservation alternative, but not a full preservation alternative. >> president hyland: i just wanted to ask, based on what you're saying, by that time that they come before the h.p.c., would there be a developer involved and perhaps, you know, a much better look at the massing and the form of the proposed projects because i think that is the issue for us?

that could keep the number closer to the project objectives. anyway, it's just one of those questions of where -- you foe, at what point in the process would the h.p.c. be looking at the final draft? and then would you have other alternatives to present in that as part of the review at that time. first, i would like to respond to say that it sounds like the partial preservation alternative, the comments we're getting on that, you would like to see the refined some to get closer to the project itself.

so that i'm hearing and that is what we would put in the comment letter and move forward that one with the more detail. the question fort commission after we get clarity for you commissioner pearlman, if we can move forward, then with no full preservation alternative, or it's the direction of the commission, you would want to see that by the time the draft eir comes back to you? >> i'm curious if we didn't have a full preservation alternative, is that okay? or are there other alternatives that could emerge once there is a design team involved? could other preservation alternatives emerge that we haven't seen yet? but i mean, again, it's fine with me if there weren't a full preservation alternative. it's just that was explored and projected. >> to clarify, what we want is a reasonable range of alternatives

that you know reduce or fully reduce significant and unavoidable impacts that meet most project objectives. so we would have that with a partial preservation alternative. so we feel that is fine from the state of the eir. i would defer to others to weigh in on that, but we want to make sure that the h.p.c. is fine with the range of alternatives as well. >> if i could interject. yes, i think -- i'm fine with that. and the range of alternatives, but the question i'm having is the partial preservation, the only thing that distinguishes that from the full preservation is the retention of the facade. so the impacts would be very similar, right? we're not really lessening the

impact all that much in the full preservation alternative? >> that's correct. we were trying to retain more of the form of the building so allowing it be expressed along the whole wall, we thought the approach to retain those character defining features of the building. as justin explained, we did look at a variety of options on how far that setback should be. you know, we looked at everything for 58 feet to do that whole bay there. to the 15 feet. and basically tried to balance that in relationship to making sure we could still meet the project objectives. but that was the approach to try to retain as many character defining features as possible in the full preservation alternative. >> yeah, that makes sense. i would -- that could be achieved -- not that we're saving any more of the building, but that urban form could be achieved in the new building and new design.

that piece of the building really is not bad. there is not much there. >> that's something we could explore then looking more at the form of the building reading as the hampshire street facade now, but then maintaining partial portion -- partial preservation portion of the building, maintaining that. so it would still probably be then a refinement of the partial preservation alternative. >> right. >> i think that's fine. >> from an urban design point of view, to do a project this substantial and have retained a blank wall, you know, all the way along hampshire street seems like a bad decision because, you know, you're really doing the community no service. and as commissioner hyland said, there is really not much character you know in a wall that is just basically a blank

wall with a cornice on it that just runs up the street. i agree that would be acceptable. >> i would add on that i think the housing -- housing number in the evaluation, i would expect and i would actually challenge any developer and have in the past challenged developers that that target number of housing can probably be achieved in either of these preservation alternatives. you just have to think about how the rest of the site gets laid out and where the massings are and the light and the air and the court yards. it's the functionality of the actual terminal, the bus fleet, that we certainly have no knowledge of. it looks like we'll have 19 base with the proposed project, versus 17. i would challenge the design

team or the developer team to keep the historic building, get us 19 base if that's possible. same thing with the number of trolleys or buses or whatever numbers they were talking about. you know, is there a target that can be achieved, if it's 230, 207. for me, keeping as the city, i would expect keeping the historic building if we have to go to 207 is probably not that far off from 213. just being stewards of our own resources. is that enough? is that clear enough for you to summarize our comments? >> planning department staff. yeah, i think we have sufficient

comments to summarize. >> the last thing i'd say is the turning radius and if you need the perimeter of the site to get the turning radius and this building is interrupting that. again, i want to challenge the design and development team that maybe there is another way to achieve that. i don't know, i would never know. it's not my expertise. >> president hyland, department staff. can i address commissioner pearlman's question earlier about timing for the developer? >> absolutely. >> it's kind of an unknown question at this point, the timing of the developer in relation to when the draft eir will be published and this is kind of what i was alluding to earlier. the challenges coming up with preservation alternatives when we don't necessarily have a

developer on board. ceqa requires us to use the best available information and provide a reasonable range of alternatives to understand what the impacts are. by the time the project is up for approvals, yes, all those details will be out. there will need to be more details of the final design looks like including looking at things from, you no e the planning -- you know, the planning commission and your comments as well on what the final design looks like. whether or not all the design details are going to be on the draft eir is to be determined. >> commissioner pearlman: i understand that. there is no expectation of a level of design. i disagree with commissioner hyland there is many ways to skin a cat and i wouldn't want the limitation of the circumstances to be a limitation of the future project.

>> thank you. >> commissioner pearlman: thanks. >> president hyland: are we done? any other comments on the site? if there are no further comments, that does conclude the agenda today. >> president hyland: all right, we're adjourned. thank you. see you soon.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so

that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value. remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both

fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the

exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website or