>> great. thank you. welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission

hearing for wednesday, february 3, 2021. 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 convene remotely. this is our 16th remote hearing. remote hearing require everyone's attention and most of all your patience. if you're not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the hearing live. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 1-415-655-0001. entering access code, 146 651 0672. when we reach your item, press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that the line is

unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. when your allotted time is reached, i will say your time is up and take the next person. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute your volume on your television or computer. i'd like to take roll. >> president hyland: yes. >> vice president matsuda: here. >> commissioner black: here. >> commissioner foley: here. >> commissioner johns: here. >> commissioner pearlman: here. >> commissioner so: here. >> thank you, commissioners. first on the agenda, general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction except agenda items. agenda items will be afforded

when each item is reached in the meeting. members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star 3 to be entered into the queue. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners, from members of the public, public comment -- general public comment is closed. and we can move on to department matters. item 1. department announcements. >> just quickly, good afternoon, commissioners. i just wanted to let you know there was a recent court of appeals decision that upheld the city's decision to remove the statue, which i know many of you were involved in. the decision through certificate of appropriateness and skwal finding. -- ceqa finding. it was upheld in the decision. so happy to say that decision.

[indiscernible] >> thank you. >> seeing no further questions for the director, we can move on to commission matters. president's report and announcements. >> president hyland: so, commissioners, we spoke about this last hearing. and jonas and i have -- this is regard to the colonial ignition. what we're going to do, is print the statement that is -- it's printed in our agenda. and i don't think i'm going to read this every hearing, but i would like to read it again today just to put it on the record and let the public know that it's on our agenda. and maybe what we'll do is remind people occasionally of this.

it will be in our agenda ongoing. and maybe when we have agenda items that are relevant, we might want to speak it into the record. but the board of supervisors is reading this into the record every hearing. so it may not be necessary for all commissions to do this, but i just wanted to do it one. this will be the first time since we've passed our resolution, our equity resolution. and the statement is, the historic preservation commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. that is the indigenous spirits of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never lost or forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all people who reside in their traditional

territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respect by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community. and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. so that's all i have for my report. jonas? >> jonas: thank you, commission president. item 3, consideration of draft minutes for january 20, 2021. members of the public, if you wish to speak to the minutes, this is your opportunity to get into the queue by pressing star then 3. seeing no requests from the members of the public. public comment is closed and the minutes are now before you. >> president hyland: any comments, commissioners? maybe a motion? >> motion to approve. >> second.

>> thank you, commissioners. seeing no further deliberation, there is a motion seconded to adopt the minutes from january 20. >> commissioner black: yes. >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner pearlman: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> vice president matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. >> jonas: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. item 4, commission comments and questions. okay, seeing a request -- >> president hyland: i put in a request there, did you not get it? >> i see it now. i saw it under the minutes. >> yeah. >> am i up, thank you? i wanted to make a comment and

i'm going to read something about the school renaming that has been a hot topic. i'm sure many of you saw the articles in the paper about that. i wrote something out and i'll just read it into the record. i want to extend my sadness, frustration, and alittle bit of disgust to the board of education for its school renaming exercise. thinks one that takes political correctness to new highs. while there are names that shouldn't be associated with the schools of our city due to past endeavors, the shoddy way the schools were collected and the lack of intellectually measured historical research renders this exercise nothing more than another joke told at the expense of san francisco at conferences or conventions. according to the research of the board, significantly diminished the opportunities of

those amongst us to the right of liberty,s asked board resume -- as the board resolution put it. thomas jefferson was deemed no longer suitable and the abraham lincoln, intervened to moderate the crimes against native americans, was cited in stripping his name from a high school. one example was enough to qualify for renaming rather than taking their live as a whole. i'll skip down. but what a phenomenal teaching exercise this could have been. a teaching plan could have been fashioned for every san francisco student to learn lessons that the renaming effort is hoping to provide. how about learning about the fact that even our heroes are imperfect and just human after

all? what about learning that one episode of one's life, does not make up the sum total of who they are and what they've done. maybe the students could decide if a small infraction is enough. ultimately, abeham lincoln's life will be summarized by the native american men hanged in 1962. the emancipation proclamation, what's that? i would ask that our commission, given this is about deeply understood or lack thereof from the board of ed, historical information, that we come together and make a statement and get something on record to

address the -- the school renaming. i don't know if other people feel this way, but i was kind of appalled at some of the people that were considered, even the names of places, mission and presidio, deemed not worthy of being on the schools of san francisco. so it's kind of -- i'm frustrated, of course, because we have no jurisdiction or authority to do anything. but i think it would be important for the hpc to make a public statement. >> president hyland: thank you, commissioner pearlman. i think what we can do here is put this on a future agenda. let's check with the city attorney. i see other commissioners want to speak, but i'm not sure it's appropriate unless we're talking about getting this on the agenda. >> jonas: i will remind you that

conversation that looks to be forming, it is not on today's agenda and i would recommend if the commission so desired to have a conversation on this, that we certainly add it to our next hearing on february 17. then the commission can have a robust conversation about what next steps this commission could take. >> commissioner pearlman: that would be my request, thank you. >> president hyland: is that sufficient, commissioner johns? >> commissioner johns: that's what i was going to suggest. >> jonas: very good. duly noted, commissioners. there are other requests to speak from commissioners about other matters, we can move on to your regular calendar for item

5, case number 2020-1043 for the fiscal year 2020-2021 proposed department budget. this is for your consideration to adopt a recommendation for approval. i do see staff and most of the senior management team present. are you prepared to make your presentation ms. lan dis? >> yes, good afternoon. following up on our first budget presentation. so i do have -- for you today. going over, as we usually do, some comments from the planning commissioners. so we have a response to some of their comments from the first presentation. then revenue and expenditures and how those have changed over the last few weeks. as well as a reminder of the calendar over the next several months.

so the planning commissioners have questions about additional detail relating to equity. we wanted to point out that a variety of our work program and our plan for the coming year, we do have that really across the department. so in the land, use and transportation, we're looking to foster a more equitable distribution of new housing across the city. and there is a caltrain station study and rail yard working group. the community equity division is looking at policies, policy engagement and cultural district. in terms of specific geography bayview, we have strategies there. the program has helped close to 3,000 small businesses. and from a survey of shared spaces to the business, of the

respondents, 50% were women-owned. 33% immigrant-owned and. this is in addition to $500 thousand of equity grants. you can see here this is similar to what we shared two weeks ago. the main change here, the numbers are going down in the proposed 20-21 and 22-23 years. that's because last year we had a particularly high number of transfer of funds to non-city agencies. so it comes to planning and we give it out to bart. the non-city agencies. so we have fewer transfers out this year and next year. and really slight differences in expenditure recovery. and that is the services we provide to other departments in the city. so as we go through and talk about what projects they'd like us to work on and what we're able to do for them, those

numbers will continue to adjust as well. and then on the expenditure side, you can see that the numbers that have changed are in the project line. again, that's related to the impact fee. that number has decreased. so a reminder the overhead number will change after we submitted our budget to the mayor's office. so we don't know yet what the number will be, but we know it will be different than what is reflected here. and then capital and equipment is anything over $5,000 with a life span of three or more years. we're not proposing to buy any big equipment in the next two years. the interdepartmental services number, that will also change. that is the big three there are rents, city attorney costs and department of technology. rent and the department of technology input their numbers again after the planning department is done with the

budget, when it's sitting in the mayor's office. so we expect a change. we don't know what they'll look like. and that is my very quick recap for you. as you can see, not a whole lot has changed. we also went to the planning commission the day after we presented to you. we will be going to them tomorrow as well. then the charter has requirement that we submit budgets to the mayor's office february 21, but because that's a sunday this year, we're submitting on the 22nd. the mayor's budget office publishes their proposed budget june 1st. then we are back and forth with the supervisors. and in july, the full board considers the budget. so, if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. that's our update. >> president hyland: commissioners, one, i want to thank you for your consideration

of the budget. -- commissioners, i want to thank you for the consideration of the budget. as you know, it's been quite a challenging budget year. and kind of considering our budget for next year, so i wanted to thank our budget and finance team and tom and deborah for their work in kind of dealing with this and the economic uncertainties. and thank them for past years in building a budget that we do have flexibility and can respond to these changing conditions, so we're in, i think, good shape to be able to respond to some of the things we don't know. also wanted to thank meagan wade and maryam and the other senior managers who worked to implement the accessibility tool that we talked about last week. this is ongoing process to center our work on equity as you passed into resolution earlier this year. and look at how we're dedicating

resources and taking a deep dive in who our programs and budget benefits. and who is burdened by our decision. so, again, thank you for your consideration and happy to answer any questions. >> president hyland: doesn't look like anyone has questions. shall we take public comment, jonas? >> jonas: we should. although, it does not appear we're going to get a whole lot. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the department budget by pressing star 3 to enter the queue. commissioners, seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed. and the matter is now before you. i will certainly advise if anyone does raise their hand to speak. >> president hyland: great.

commissioner black? >> commissioner black: i just wanted to say that i saw the review two weeks ago and today really interesting. especially in the context of the 2019-2020 -- i think it was called the planning department annual report. i was actually really surprised at how, you know, obviously some downturns, but not very significant. there is still a lot of activity. in fact, the only really significant downturn i could see was in 2019. in december there was a huge surge of building permit applications before the new california building code went into effect in january of 2020. and then there was a huge decline. other than that, the application submittals and processing seemed pretty steady. i think the department should be

very proud of itself, because having to adapt to remote working, especially in a business where interactions with the public is essential and huge, i think it's pretty impressive also accommodating the new social equity activities. so i think department heads and all the planning staff should be commended for being even and heading forward despite challenges, like a reduced budget from the mayor, and remote working and all the other things that have come our way. >> thank you, commissioner black. i just wanted to acknowledge director hillis and appreciation for your commitment of funding and making sure that the city-wide survey continues on. as we know -- i just want to

reiterate, while this is important for us acknowledging and understanding our historic resources, you know, statistically speaking with the survey l.a., and with some preliminary data here in san francisco, it's been pretty accurate that we have 70% of our unassessed or non-evaluated properties are actually non-historic. and the great benefit is that these non-historic buildings can now be identified once we get through the survey and will alleviate the pressure on all the potential category as, as well as not require all these 70% of properties to go through the same evaluation process long and drawn out as the category a buildings. so this is kind of a win-win. and with the current discussion

at the board of supervisors in supporting the change of use from single family to four units, as other municipalities have done, that will allow a lot of potential infill housing to be done throughout the city. and areas where the impact to the neighborhood character will not be as significant as larger apartment buildings. but having that sprinkled across the city will really add to our need for building housing. i just wanted to send our appreciation to director hillis for maintaining that priority. >> jonas: this is an action

item. so if you would -- >> i'd like to approve the budget. >> second it. >> jonas: very good. thank you. on that motion to adopt a recommendation for approval, 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: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 6a and b for case numbers 2021-00331lbr and 2020-330lbc for the properties at 250 napoleon street and 5166 third street. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> would it be okay if i just

poll the commissioners to make sure -- it was brought to our attention that the packet we received didn't have all of the information. i just want to make sure that the commissioners are okay with us proceeding and feel we have the appropriate information to hear that. >> jonas: absolutely. yes, my understanding is that the 250 napoleon street property, the packet was somewhat deficiencyant in all of the relative materials that were transmitted to you. but have since been provided to the commissioners. this is a consideration for an adoption. it's not authorizing legacy business status. and so you are a reviewing agency, but certainly if you do

not feel comfortable considering the 250 napoleon street property address, we can certainly continue it to a later date. >> president hyland: so the appropriate action at this point, if anyone is feeling it is inadequate, is to propose a continuance. i'm personally okay with moving forward. >> me too. >> so am i. >> yes. >> good. >> jonas: it appears as we can move forward. katie, the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners. department staff. we have two legacy business applications to present, both of which are located in supervisor district 10. after staff presentations, the business representatives will have the opportunity to speak on their own behalf during public comment. the first legacy business application is for a.j.c. auto body, a 31-year-old collision repair facility at 250 napoleon

street. a.j.c. auto body has a resounding reputation in the city and its immediate bayview community for providing a wide range of services to a large demographic base. ranging from college students with fender benders to retirees with ambitious auto body restoration projects. a.j.c. is known for its excellent customer service and has seen returning customers that are second and third generation patrons. a.j.c. has four employees and collectively they're able to provide services to contemporary and historic vehicles. the business has remained in its original location since opening with no lapse in operation. they're committed to maintaining the business's sign as well as the business's use and professional friendly services that the business has become known for. the planning department is supportive of this application and recommends a resolution

supporting this business be added to the legacy business registry. i want to acknowledge i had forgotten to include the a.j.c. application. however, it was forwarded on as jonas stated. i will go to melanie who will present the final legacy application for today. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the second legacy business application we have today is for an independent hardware store that has been serving the community for 84 years. j. mazzei and son hardware was opened by an italian immigrant at a current location in 1936. as an independent hardware store, staff is able to provide tailored advice due to their knowledge. the business has been supportive

of bayview community efforts over years and is staple of the third street commercial district. the business is committed to safeguarding features of the business, including the key duplicating machine that has been in use since the business opened. the exterior brick facade. the displays windows featuring tools and products from different eras. and the j. mazzei and son hardware signs. staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add j. mazzei and son hardware to the legacy business registry. >> this concludes staff presentation, thank you. >> jonas: thank you. okay. commissioners, since that concludes staff presentations, we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, if you wish to speak to either of these applications for legacy business

registry, applicants, you must do so by pressing star 3 to enter the queue. i have no members of the public requesting to speak. i certainly will advise if some latecomer does request to speak. for now, public comment is closed and the matters are now before you. >> president hyland: great, thank you. that's unfortunate. i hoped that potentially either the businesses would be represented. commissioner johns, did you want to go ahead? >> commissioner johns: -- >> president hyland: i think you're on mute. >> commissioner johns: thank you. it's always something i look forward to, hearing from the individual business owners because frequently they have

stories that are usually inspiring and certainly informative. so i join our president in being a little disappointed they didn't show up. but nevertheless, the applications do reveal two very worthy businesses. and so i move that that be approved -- they be approved? >> second. >> jonas: seeing no further deliberation, there is a motion seconded to adopt recommendations for approval. on that motion, commissioner black? >> commissioner black: yes. >> commissioner foley: yes. >> commissioner johns: yes. >> commissioner pearlman: yes. >> commissioner so: yes. >> vice president matsuda: yes. >> president hyland: yes. i just would like this

acknowledge we now have two more in district 10 which is wonderful. >> jonas: great. thank you, commissioners. that will place us on the final agenda item, number 7. case number 2019-22850env, 1101 -- 1123 sutter street. this is for review and comment. staff, are you prepared to make presentation? >> yes. good afternoon, planning department staff. the item before you is review and comment on the preservation alternative that will be floored in the draft eir for 1101 to 1123 sutter street. this item before you does not require an approval action, but is an opportunity to provide additional comments and recommendations. i'm joined by david young, the environmental coordinator for the project. alison, is the principle preservation center.

and the planner and the project site we have the company representing the sponsor. i would like to turn the presentation over to patrick who is going to give a run down on the project. >> hello. this is patrick. can you hear me? hello? >> yes, with we can hear you -- we can hear you. >> great. justin, you're going to put up the slide show. if you would, please. just to confirm, justin, you can

hear me, right? okay. i see head nods. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is patrick mc-- we've been working in san francisco for the past 32 years. i'm going to give you a brief overview of some of the previous work and ultimately we'll turn the presentation over to planning staff. just for -- so you can familiarize who we are. there is some of our historical projects. one of them more well known is the creation of mint plaza. so we were instrumental in not only the design process on the street, but the funding as well and the development and construction of the mint plaza. you can just for reference

purpose, you can see a before and after shot, for those who don't remember what it looked like before it was a plaza. also, although we do new work and historic work, i'm just going to highlight more historic accomplishments so you can see our experience with rehabilitation structures. this is two mint. it was rehabilitated in 1989. it is now listed as contributor to the national registry district. this is 6 and 10 mint. both are individual buildings and they're also listed at contributors on the national registered district identified as hail brothers department store. this is 14 mint plaza, formerly known as 54 mint. this is an individual listing on a national register.

not the high rise here, the short building to the left. this is 580 howard street. this is listed again as a contributor to a national register district. we rehabilitated this building in the late 90s. next slide. and this is a project that we completed down in los angeles, 18 south grand. that is listed individual listing of a national register of historic places as well. and finally, we've also initiated and facilitated the establishment of three separate national registered districts in san francisco. this is a mini district, the hill brothers department store district. this is the second and howard street district we established in the late 90s.

and then finally, this is the south end historic district. it was a locally designated district, but we initiated and facilitated establishment as a national registered districts with the boundaries slightly different than the local district. and finally, just for reference purposes, this is an example of a building that is historic rehabilitation that is not listed on the national register. and i bring this up just because this is one of those buildings that we will talk about more i think in the presentation from staff, where although the building was eligible for the national register, the scale of the addition was not in conformance with the secretary of interior standards. and we actually at the time, christopher and i traveled to

washington d.c. and directly appealed our case to the secretary to try and get this to be considered a qualified rehabilitation. and at that time they were pretty adamant. the scale of the addition was too big. so this is not -- we consider it a very successful project. we love the architecture, but it is certainly not a national register project. this is our subject site, which i'll let staff talk more about. there are two buildings, existing buildings on the site. 1101 sutter and 1123 sutter. you're looking at 1101. there is a building built in the 1900s. it was constructed for fields engineering college. it was a specific type of use for this building, which was for their automobile school. that was the original

construction. there was a lot of automobile-type structures being built around that time as well. and this is 1123 sutter. this is its longest use has been for a mortgage wary. as you can see, more twary. and the idea, our objective and this project is to retain the 1101, the hills engineering building. and not add on to the addition -- vert vert /* -- vertically to the building. just a couple more slides here. this is actually an old flyer

from fields engineering and automobile school. you can see at the bottom of the flyer, the rendering of 1101 sutter. we view it as not only a tremendous asset to the historic fabric of san francisco, but also it's got a unique and worth while history to embrace. finally, the last slide here. you can see the proposed project, which is the full rehabilitation of the landmark component of the development. 1101 sutter, really highlighting the historic nature of it. and then building an entirely new structure behind it in place of the former more twary and there is undeveloped portion of the property well.

it's to have 201 apartments. we have bike parking, car parking. child care facility. as you can see, amenities that are fairly complimentary to residential and commercial development. that concludes my presentation. >> jonas: thank you. do you have anything further? justin, any additional closing remarks? if not, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star 3 and entering the queue. seeing no members of the public, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you.

>> president hyland: looks like there is something -- >> hi. can we give justin a few minutes to get his presentation ready. we haven't gone through the presentation for the alternatives. that was just a brief overview by the project sponsor. >> jonas: absolutely. that's why i asked. i just didn't hear anything fromeous tin. i think -- justin. justin is still here. >> yes. can we -- just a second. to deal with any technical difficulty, thank you. >> sorry, this is justin. i'm going to go ahead and share my screen. >> before we get going, certainly i think someone has a small child in the background. so if people aren't speaking, perhaps they could mute their microphone?

i want to confirm you can hear me and see my slide presentation. >> we can. >> sorry for the technical difficulties. i will just reiterate these are the preservation alternatives for the project at 1101 to 1123 sutter street. >> jonas: you may want to put it in slide presentation mode. because we can see your notes.

are you able to see it better now? there you go, very good. >> sorry. i wanted to talk about the project site which is located at 1101 to 1123 sutter street in the tenderloin neighborhood just north of civic center. the site contains two buildings along with a parking lot. at the corner is 1101 sutter which is restored auto garage. and 1123 sutter is the mortuary building. and then further west is the parking lot. as you mentioned, it's a three-story automobile parking garage. the building is four base wide along sutter street and five

base wide along -- [indiscernible] -- the ground floor features a mixture of windows and automobile on sutter and -- street. the building was constructed in 1920. the building was operated by healed until 1935 until it was taken over and turned into an automobile garage. it remained an auto repair facility until 1962 when it was purchased by daily. as well as provide parking for other clients. the building was currently a public parking garage and auto repair facility. 1101 sutter is individually eligible for listing in the california register under criteria 1 [indiscernible] and automobile school. and criteria 3 as a well preserved example of a garage

dated in the 1920s. [indiscernible] construction in 1920 up until -- by the early owners in 1961. the character defining features of 1101 include concrete and brick masonry construction. a stucco finish. molded cement, plaster. sheet metal. grid like pattern. and [indiscernible] window. further west is 1123 sutter street, which is a one-story mortuary, comprised of two structures that were remodelled in 1925. the entire elevation is -- framed window wall. the framing element is -- three plastic -- garland and green tea

and is supported by columns. contain pairs of windows on metal class rescreen above. [indiscernible] secondary elevations are less elaborately detailed. you can see one of the secondary elevations here along with the surface parking lot. 1123 sutter street was -- undertaker. that operated from 1926 until 2019. 1123 sutter is eligible for listing in the california register under criterion 1, 2

and 3. the association -- which is one of the most prominent establishments in san francisco. it's also significant under criterion 2 for its association with -- [indiscernible] -- through the prominent records and undertaking profession. and lastly, architecture for classical revival style designed by august moreland. period of significance is 1926 to 1930 and spans the time it was operated personally up until his death. the character defining features of 1123 sutter includes the one story height. the simple rectangular form. the primary facade that includes seven bays. the custom streetlights. and the decorative details.

that would include the columns along with the metal -- [indiscernible] lastly, there are few more publicly interior spaces that are character defining. they include the reception area on the bottom right photo. the chapel, which is in the top photo. and the three suites of bereavement rooms. moving on to talk about the project, i was going to give you a brief overview of the project objective. they include developing a well defined financially feasible mixed use project. creating a more attractive street-level experience. and retaining is torque resources on d historic resources on the site. the mixed use development includes the retention and rehabilitation of 1101 sutter

street per the secretary of interior standards. and demolition of the mortuary and parking lot. all together, the development would construct 201 residential units which 16 would be located in the rehabilitated 1101 sutter building. because the proposed project was demolished at 1123 sutter streets, alternatives need to be explored. under ceqa guidelines, this range of alternatives need to be explored. as well as avoid -- [indiscernible] effects. as a reminder this not require approval, but is an opportunity to provide input on the alternative -- the project sponsor and planning department have identified one full preservation alternatives and

two partial. table that highlights some of the key fixtures of the alternative of this project. so the project development is developed 201 on site and the full preservation alternative would construct 115 units of housing. partial preservation alternative 2b would construct 181 units. full preservation alternatives -- [indiscernible] 1101 sutter street would remain and be rehabilitated similar to what it is in the proposed project. the two-story addition would be constructed with a 25-foot setback. a 200 foot tower would be constructed. the tower in the addition over 1123 sutter would be similar to

part of the tower that features a panel-like -- with alternae existing panels. 115 residential units would be constructed. 14 in 1101 sutter. 16 in 1123. and 75 in the new tower. -- 85 in the new tower. [indiscernible] this project still meets or partially meets the objectives of the project, with the construction at 115 housing units, this is the proposed -- project 201. in looking at the parcel preservation alternative 1, this would be [indiscernible]

1101 sutter street but would include a four-story addition. 1123 sutter street would be retained and would include a four-story addition with 25-foot setback from sutter. the tower would be constructed on the site of the parking lot. the detailing of the tower and the addition would feature the same panel-like. under the preservation alternative, 151 units would be built, with 34 in 1101, 32 in 1123 and 85 in the tower. while the partial preservation alternative would retain most of the character-defining features except for the three stories, it would maintain the character defining features in 1123 --

which would only be partially obtained. it would not include the interior -- of 1123 sutter. [indiscernible] with the 151 units constructed versus two whole bun ones in the -- in the proposed project. in alternative 2b, the rehabilitation of 1101 sutter would still take place with a 10-story addition on the -- setback. [indiscernible] and would be a 4-story addition constructed with 25-foot setback. similar to the other alternatives, the towers would still be constructed on top of the parking lot. it would be similar to those of the proposed project and the other alternative, the addition over 1101 sutter would be different with a prominent grid

overlaying the addition of the retained building below. this partial preservation alternative 2b is 181 units constructed with 64 in the 1101 sutter, 32 in 1123 and the 85 in the new tower. this alternative would retain many of the character-defining features of 1101 sutter. and would still retain most features of 1123 sutter, aside from the one story and interior character -- [indiscernible] it still meets or partially meets the basic objective of the project. 181 units of housing constructed on the site. in preparing the preservation alternative, we made every effort to maximize the number of units on the site by building up the tower as high as we thought reasonable. one unintended consequence of the alternatives is that they

may have significant impact, which is something the proposed project does not have. while further evaluation is necessary to determine minor tweaks to the architecture, to mitigate, we're also considering the worst-case scenario of reducing the height of the tower down to a point where wind is not a problem. ideally, you wouldn't have to reduce the tower as this would -- in the alternative, we're going to strive to get one of -- impact. and just to talk briefly about the preparation of the preservation alternative. we took into account the location of the deliveries on the site. the character-defining features of the resource along with the objectives of the project. we looked and explored a range of addition to the historic resources in an effort to

maximize the density. ultimately, some of the parcel preservation alternatives were rejected and the height of the additions were lowered to avoid potential shadow impact. ultimately, the department concluded that the three preservation alternatives presented represent a balance between reducing impact to local resources on the site, as well as meeting the basic project objectives. this concludes my presentation. and i'm here along with the project sponsor and the other environmental planners to answer any questions you have. >> jonas: thank you. commissioners, we should just for the record open up public comment in case any member of the public wanted to submit testimony. members of the public, this is

your opportunity to press star and 3 to enter the queue. seeing no request to speak frlt public, the public comment is closed. there is no needed action here. >> president hyland: thank you. i have a quick question for justin. is the -- the wind evaluation that you did relative to the preservation alternatives, is the wind an issue for the proposed project? >> the wind is not an issue to the proposed project. i think the potential wind impact mostly from the fact that we really pushed to get the height of the tower on the parking lot as high as possible. so i think that's the main factor. >> president hyland: great. thank you. so i'll start where you left off with alison. commissioner pearlman?

>> commissioner pearlman: thank you. thank you, mr. greving and the project sponsor. i thought this was -- i was impressed with the depth of the analysis on this project. i started with the presented alternatives, but then found the additional studies that were done on this and clearly there was a lot of analysis done to really come up with some reasonable approaches. the only thing i'm disappointed with is in the proposed project, because i think the 1123 building, the halstead building, is rather unique. i mean, we don't -- there is very few buildings in the city that have the kind of architecture that is seen on that building. and you know, i think that the full preservation and both

preservation alternates -- alternatives do strive to keep that building and the presence of that building on the street. i thought it was kind of interesting that one of the comments about the proposed project was, you know, to create this kind of interesting streetscape. i was thinking, well, it already has a pretty interesting streetscape there. and opening up between the columns on the halstead building, you know, just creating a little more visibility through there, would be a way to create a fantastic sort of lobby or entrance or retail presentation on the street. -- presence on the street. so, again, i think these are very well done. i would want to comment on the preservation alternative scheme 2b, which to me is really a pretty awful -- from an architecture standpoint and from

the historical preservation standpoint of putting this very large, what looks like a typical 70s office building, on top of the very handsome 1101 building at the corner. so i'm hoping that would be a direction that wouldn't be pursued at all. but in general, i thought that the schemes were thought out. the presentations are very well done. so it's very easy to envision what the alternatives are and what the project is. so i wanted to thank the design team for that. that's it. thanks. >> president hyland: commissioner johns? >> commissioner johns: it was from before, but i do really think that commissioner pearlman has some excellent comments.

i used to live about 10 blocks from that building. and i have always really loved the 1920s and what it could do to columns. if there was some way that could be maintained, i would be really enthusiastic about it. >> commissioner foley: so a couple of things. one, i did talk to the project sponsor last week for a short moment of time. i told -- i didn't tell him what i thought about the project, except i did tell him that i was impressed by him and the work he's done. i think the body of work he's done is pretty spectacular. in this particular project, what i'm actually really excited about is the early childhood education part of the project. and i actually think any of these projects of scale that we look at, we should push the

project sponsor to figure out a way to get early childhood education facilities and get groups in there that can help take care of these kids at a young age at price that makes economic sense. i built three or four of these in my career and i think it's important, early childhood education. regarding the project itself, i almost put this project under contract with myself and my partners. it is a very difficult site to do. when i just saw what the project sponsor is proposing on the old college building and making it a spectacular renovation and having that stay pure and building a new building. i really liked it and i like the fact that we're getting 40 units of affordable housing at 50% a.m.i. i think the project sponsor did a great job. i think the alternative gets pretty complicated from the

standpoint of ingress and egress, all those different places they're going to put housing. i think it kind of gets weird. so i think the planning staff and the project sponsor and the design team did a really great job. you know, i'm pretty certain that they should be able to work through any one issue. so thank you for letting me comment. >> president hyland: great thank you. commissioner black? >> commissioner black: yes. i, too, think that there has been a lot of really good advance work on this. and i was very happy that the project sponsor provided some background of some of their prior projects. it's quite impressive in that helps promote this. i have to say in preparation of my meeting notes, commissioner pearlman -- actually i agreed

with everybody, but commissioner pearlman hit it spot on with every question i had. i think the depth of analysis was very well done. i was sorry that there weren't any -- that preservation alternative to retain that mortuary building wasn't more fully explored. it is really a unique building and it's quite a nice-looking building. it's unusual. while we have plenty of vehicular structures, we have very few of these mortuary structures. so i would like to see it incorporated in some fashion. i agree, the openings are perfect for retail or some sort of grand lobby or whatever may happen. having said all that, i also want to respect the project sponsor. and also the comments that commissioner foley made that i thought were very useful.

that is some of us just get to comment on design and appropriateness of historic structures, but there are clearly difficulties in developing certain projects. and it's helpful to hear what those -- hear those comments. and i see a good project here. but i would love to see the mortuary streetscape explored a little further. >> president hyland: thank you, commissioner black. commissioner so? >> commissioner so: hello. first, thank you for the presentation. it's extremely thorough from justin. alison, and also the project sponsor. materials are easy to digest and i'm really appreciating this, because it just helped me

understanding a lot better. and i agree with all my fellow commissioners' comments. i'm not going to repeat on that. but i'm looking at the options, right? alternative 2b, the number seems to be the only one that will work for economic sense. but then i'm looking at the architecture and the addressed on the language that will carry on to exemplify what is historically significant and the character-defining features, it seems like the big tower over on that 1101 lot, it seems like architect had transcended it to a modern interpretation of that character-defining features of that building. but then the one that i'm interested is in the 1123. i wonder why that one got left

over. and that actually i agree with my fellow commissioner kate black, that is actually so unique to san francisco. we don't get a lot of these classical revival style. the architecture language and all these facade details and down to the interiors. i would love to see the project design team to take on that approach to exemplify the character-defining features of that genre into the new portion of the building design. and that is one thing that i really wanted to say. emphasizing it. because otherwise we will just basically see a lot of the same things over and over again on top of historically significant building populating in the skyline of san francisco. and this one has the opportunity to do something more refreshing

and also bring up the unique character for the building at 1123. i would love to also see some of the features being interpreted in a modern form, including also the interior space. i'm not sure if we're allowed to do that, but i would like to see that. right now, i'm seeing the alternative 2b option, the mapping and the design pattern, the language, basically had not as knowledge or embraced 1123. -- acknowledged. so i left the project sponsor's courage to take on the project of this scale and complexity. and i really support for that. i know -- i'm fully aware of how difficult and challenging it is. i love that you are taking on doing a very well socially

conscious child care center which is what we all need in san francisco these days. so that's my few takeaway. >> president hyland: great thank you. commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. i just had one quick shoutout to the martin company. i rented an office space from them with a restaurant 25 luesk is, the little alley near the ballpark. i saw a lot of their buildings. i think it's important we acknowledge developers like this who are incorporating historic buildings into much bigger development projects. and the 178 townsend, the park light building that the sponsor showed in the presentation. you know, they're very

interesting and they do, you know, take into account the defining features of the historic building they're incorporating. so again, just a quick shoutout to -- hoping there is a lot more developers like the martin company in san francisco. thanks. >> president hyland: great, thank you, commissioner pearlman. i just have a couple of comments. justin, i e-mailed you a photo in case you weren't able to find the -- an image that i wanted to speak to. but i want to kind of reiterate and add on berm. reiterate my fellow commissioners. i think this is a good project. i think the martin company is a great developer. and i think the baker crew has done a good job on the design of the new building. i think building adjacent to the

historic building, especially on a corner, is my preferred option. so the proposed project i think goes a long way. certainly as opposed to building on top of the corner lot. i would say one of the alternatives, the preservation alternatives ought to be -- and may be even labelled as -- retaining -- [indiscernible] -- fellow commissioners have already said about retaining the elevation of the mortuary building. when we first embarked on this retained elements, what has become the retained elements policy, we had robust conversations about retaining facades. and i am of the opinion, my opinion is that retained facades are great. and they're even better when you can allow what was behind them

to be spoken to. so keeping them as a band-aid for the building is not, i think, a good solution. but if the original entrances and the original, you know, volume of the original space is maintained, that would be my preference. we have had this in other projects -- i think retained elements, preservation alternative, could be the exact same project with recognition of the mortuary building. and if the mortuary building isn't retained, certainly the urban form of what that streetscape is -- which is what was really important about this building -- that could be incorporated into the new design. so i think that preservation alternative or partial preservation alternative

retained elements versions of the project i think would go a long way. justin, are you able to put up on the screen the photo that i sent to you? i just wanted to speak -- >> i can't open it. it looks like the file didn't go through. if you could try again. >> president hyland: in the packet, it's the -- give me a second. in our packet, it's the page 149. it like the fourth to the last sheet in our packet. >> yeah. it's the rendering of the proposed project, yeah. >> i see it. >> if justin can bring it up on the screen, is that possible? luckily, we have a perfect

example of why i think the existing urban form is important and how it ought to be incorporated into the design of the original facade can't be. >> jonas: justin, are you going to be able to bring that up. there you go. >> there you go. if you can see it. >> jonas: unfortunately, all i see is a black screen. >> yeah. there it is. >> here we go. >> president hyland: if you're able to zoom in to get hotel carlton on the left and zoom in as far as you can, if that's possible.

okay. there you go. i think that will do. maybe a little further out, just a tad. there we go. so the -- if you look at hotel carlton and the base of the building, it has some elements that pick up on the cornice line of the neighboring building. with the current proposed project, the existing urban form not only isn't, you know, acknowledged, the historic elevation, but it doesn't speak to the adjacent buildings. so having some sort of cornice lines that come through these new buildings that would give us a pedestrian-scale sutter street i think would be really helpful. we could have a further debate on whether the facade of the mortuary building should be retained or not.

but i think that the same project can be built with the retained element of the facade. or at least some form, some massing that speaks to the original massing of the block. that's all that i had. other than that, i think it's a great project. any other comments, commissioners? justin, do you have sufficient information? >> yeah. i think if i could just reiterate some of the larger points. i wanted to see if the commissioners in general were supportive of commissioner pearlman's assessment that partial preservation 2b is probably not as successful as the other alternatives. and it seems like the commission

as a whole sort of stating they find sutter to be a -- within the context of san francisco and possible in lieu of the partial preservation alternative 2b, with more of an alternative that sort of a retained element version that would retain elements of the facade of 1123 sutter and maybe not provide -- [indiscernible] 1101 sutter street. i think the commissioner comments looking into more detail as the architecture ran derring of 11 -- rendering of 1123 sutter, matches the historic detail.

>> president hyland: i think that's it. >> i would like to add one thing. i don't have problem with 2b. it just seems the style -- the design should look a little more responsive? >> okay. >> it just seems like a number if you're looking at the project. it's like the number you present to us, with the number of units and also the percentage of square footage of amenities and financially. that's like the only one that will fly. so i'm conscious about the economic side of the development as well. >> jonas: okay, commissioners. if there are -- if there is no further deliberation, that's all i got for you.

>> president hyland: [laughter] all right. i think we're adjourned. stay safe, everyone. >> have a good day. >> there's a new holiday shopping tradition, and shop and dine in the 49 is inviting everyone to join and buy black friday. now more than ever, ever dollar that you spend locally supports

small businesses and helps entrepreneurs and the community to thrive. this holiday season and year-round, make your dollar matter and buy black.

>> commissioner dejesus: sergean t youngblood please call the roll. [roll call] president cohen will join us in route. here with us tonight is chief william scott from the san francisco police department and director paul henderson from the department of police accountability. >> vice president elias: thank you, i will ask everyone to join me in the pledge of allegiance. please put your hand over your heart and say the pledge of allegiance.