>> clerk: when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating that your time is almost up. when your time is reached, i

will announce that your time is up and cue the next person to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly, and turn down your television or computer speakers. i will now take roll. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except for agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. members of the public, you need

to press star, three to enter the queue. okay. i see no members of the public wishing to speak, so general public comment is closed, and we can move onto department matters. item 1, department announcements. >> this is liz [inaudible] sitting in for director [inaudible] today. we do have one announcement, and i will hand the ball over to elizabeth johnck to give an update on the legacy business program. >> this is elizabeth johnck to give you an update on the legacy business program. the legacy business program received a 500,000 -- $500,000 additional from the board of supervisors. $400,000 of that add back is to go to qualifying small

businesses? during the 2021 through 2022 fiscal year, and the remaining $100,000 will be for a one-time new hire to support the review of legacy business applications. this is good news for the existing qualifying businesses that could benefit from fiscal qualifying support but also future review of new legacy businesses. for the remainder of this year, the office of small business will need to equitably administer the 400,000 as well as on going projects for legacy businesses. these projects include the digital marketing campaign through an r.f.p. contract with design media and the physical bronze plaques that are being contracted and fabricated through priority architectural graphics. these promotional graphics will continue alongside the new

grant distribution and hiring process. the on going updates to the website and the digital promotional tools, the office of small business will need to somewhat pause the review of new legacy business applications until the additional supportive member is hired. it's anticipated that this new member will be hired by the end of 2021 and begin reviewing legacy business applications. and in the meantime, when you have potentially fewer legacy businesses coming forward to the h.p.c. when the legacy business applications come back again, rick from o.s.c. will have a review and staffing report, and planning anticipates we will receive more businesses per batch, and that concludes my

presentation. >> clerk: okay. if there are no questions for elizabeth, we can move onto commission matters, item 2. president's report and announcements. >> i don't have any announcements at this time, sorry, but i'd like to ask elizabeth one question, particularly about the promotion of legacy businesses? this additional 400,000 also set aside some funding to do some further promotion of legacy businesses within each of the districts? >> commissioner matsuda -- >> clerk: you're muted. >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry, i'm muted. yes, and i believe that katie can update you additionally. >> great. thank you. >> hi.

katie [inaudible] of department staff. the 400 [inaudible] i think that that's a separate pool. the 400,000 is really to, i think, combat some of the fiscal side of things due to covid. >> and sorry. can i ask one other question. is there going to be an internal priority of what's going to be solved first or delegated first or tackled first and kind of work their way down or... >> so i know this, and i apologize. i don't know all the ins and outs of it, but the board of supervisors delegated the

400,000. i do know that they will need to create a new grant to do the business assistance grant for those qualifying businesses. they'll have to create a new r.f.p. and select a third party check printer, so there's going to be a lot of steps, and i don't know necessarily that there's a priority for those businesses or what's involved in that, but i know it's going to be a lot of work on the o.s.b. to get that work out to those businesses. >> okay. thank you. so if we wanted to ask further questions -- i'm just concerned about the real small business. if a business has less than five employees, and those are, i think, businesses that have really suffered the most through the pandemic, and they're not eligible for a lot of public grants and loans that

were available, because you had to prove that you had employees, and some of these were one-person-operated businesses, but i will follow up with rick kurylo at office of small business. thank you. >> clerk: okay. if there's nothing further, commission member matsuda, we have a member of the public wishing to speak. i don't know if it's on this item, but should we take that caller? >> sure. >> clerk: okay. member of the public, are you requesting to speak on department matters? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: okay. you have two minutes. >> yes. this is woody [inaudible] your letter that you wrote last year really made this happen. san francisco heritage worked

to make this a priority to restore that legacy business grant. the h.p.c. wrote in support of favoring businesses during the covid crisis last year. i do want to get money in the pockets of legacy business owners and restore that business grant, and this is a great first step, so mostly, this is just a thank you to you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> thank you. i'm sorry, jonas. i just want to publicly acknowledge the three supervisors that were instrumental in advocating for this funding. it's supervisors peskin, chan, and ronen. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, that'll place us on item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for your a.r.c. meeting of may 19, 2021,

and your draft minutes for the historic preservation commission meeting for july 21, 2021. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the minutes by pressing star, three to enter the queue. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak on the minutes, public comment is now closed and the matter is now before you. >> move to accept the minutes. >> second. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0 and will place us on item 4 for commission comments and

questions. okay. seeing no requests to speak from members of the commission, we can move right along. at this time of issuance of the agenda, there was no items proposed for continuance, and there are still no items proposed for continuance, so we'll move right into your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 5, 2021-00283des, for the property at one montgomery street, also known as 1-25 montgomery street, crocker national bank building. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you ready to begin? >> yes. paula lavalley. i am, but i believe before i

do, commissioner peskin's -- a member of commissioner peskin's staff is here to speak. >> i don't have a lot to say. i want to thank pilar for putting farther such great reports. as for one montgomery, item number 5, this was initiated by supervisor peskin on december 15, unanimously approved by the board of supervisors, approved by the mayor's office. it's really a no brainer. it's a beautiful building. just looking at it, you know. it has all the hall marks of the italian renaissance revival. willows polk is a name that is not foreign to anybody in this room. i will also remark that we did a walk-through of this project

with the project sponsor of a current pending project, and it's really amazing to see the interior of this, which i also know is up for landmark designation today, and i want particularly impressed by the walk-through and their proposal to restore the light well in the main banking hall, which, for some reason, between it going from 12 stories to two stories, the light well was covered up, and i think restoring that is going to be a really, really beautiful next iteration of this property. so that's all i'll say about that, and i'll turn it back over to pilar. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you, lee. let me just share my presentation. >> commissioner wright, i'd like to request recusal from this item and from calendar item number 6, so...

>> clerk: okay. commissioners, commissioner wright is requesting to be recused from this matter for a potential conflict, so we should hear a motion. >> i move that commissioner wright be reaccused. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to recuse commissioner wright -- [roll call]

. >> clerk: okay. commissioner wright, you are recused. >> thank you, jonas. i'll look for an e-mail from you. >> clerk: are you looking to be recused from items 5 and 6? >> yes. did i not make that clear? >> clerk: yes. >> i think so, but do we need to take that -- >> clerk: no, that was my mistake. commissioner wright, i will notify you when to log back in. >> thank you. >> clerk: all right. go ahead. >> all right. good afternoon, commissioners. pilar lavalley, department staff. before you is a request for landmark designation for one montgomery street or 1-25 montgomery street, also known as the crocker national bank

building. this was proposed by supervisor peskin on december 15, 2020, and approved by the kbrss on january 12, 2021, and then proposed for the mayor's signature, and my slides don't seem to be moving.

sorry, i'm having some technical difficulties. >> clerk: pilar, i'm going to hand the ball over to josey, and she can share her screen, and you can just ask her to move the slides. >> thank you. sorry about that. next slide, please one montgomery street, it consists of a two-story bank building. most recently, it was a wells fargo bonk, with bank on the ground floor -- bank, with bank on the ground floor, offices on the second floor, and safe and more offices in the basement. the banking hall featured ornamental, and in 1921, it was expanded along montgomery

street. this essentially matched the design established by polk in the original portion of the building, although the original architect for the building was charles gottschalk. equally important to the classification as a banking temple are the ornate banking halls on the interior. the overall character include original 1920's marble color counters is exceedingly elaborate, creating one of san

francisco's most iconic predepression landmarks. as detailed in the fact sheet prepared by planning staff and included in your packet, one montgomery street is [inaudible] it is also architecturally and historically significant as an excellent and well preserved example of an early 20 century banking temple in the italian renaissance revival style, was designed in its first phase by a recognized master architect and includes the work of a master craftsman. the period of significance is

1908 to 1924. next slide, please. staff to date has not received any public comment regarding this landmark designation. the department believes that one montgomery street meets the established eligibility requirements and that status is warranted. although it has been altered, most notably by the removal of upper stories in the late 70s and early 80s, the building retains enough characteristics to continue historical significance, retain rich and ornate detail being that rise -- detailing that rise to

the level of a significant neoclassical banking retail. the department recommends that the commission retain the resolution of landmark designation at one montgomery street, and forward it to the board of supervisors. the planning commission requires that public access to the historic banking hall be maintained and any changes to the use that do require a permit are subject to a certificate of appropriateness to be approved by this commission and which the project sponsor plans to be filing soon. the property owner and their attorney, from reuben junius, as well as their architect are on the line to answer any

questions, although i don't believe they're making any or plan on making any comments themselves but will respond to questions unless you have them. thank you, and that completes my presentation unless you have any questions. >> pilar, does the project sponsor have a presentation? >> no, no presentation, and they're not planning on making any comments. >> clerk: then we should take public comment. members of the public, you should make public comment by pressing star, three, and when you hear the indication, you may begin your status. >> good morning. my name is kathrin naught and i'm speaking on behalf of the crocker national bank building. first of all, we want to thank

supervisor peskin for bringing this forward. one montgomery is certainly one of the most iconic buildings in downtown san francisco, worthy of landmark designation, and we wholly support it. on another note, we note a pattern of changing banking halls to private office space. we urge you to look at strategies for keeping the banking hall interiors publicly accessible as will happen at one montgomery in a somewhat robust way than the building was originally experienced -- designed and experienced, but we do -- are watching this

closely, especially with the -- the over availability, some would say, glut of available office space in san francisco at the moment, and just urge you to be cautious about that in the future. but we support this landmark nomination and are very happy to do so. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. seeing no other public comment, public comment is now closed, and commissioner, the matter is now -- commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> commissioner johns?

>> i just want to say, for years, i frequented that building because i did a lot of business with wells fargo. to say it's a magnificent building would be an understatement, and the report that accompanied this packet today was just anything less than staggeringly good would also be an understatement, so i move that we should all support this, and i move that it be approved. >> thank you. any other comments from the commission? do i hear a -- >> motion to approve by commissioner foley? >> clerk: i believe that commissioner johns beat you to

it, but i'll take a second from commissioner foley. very good. there's been a motion to approve. on that motion [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that item is approved unanimously, 6-0, and places us on item 6, 2021-00289des, at 447 battery street, a.k.a. the jones-thierbach copy company. staff, are you ready to make your presentation?

>> yes. pilar lavalley once again, and i would once again turn this over to supervisor peskin's office. >> thank you, pilar. i think 447 battery is no less deserving than the last. when you read this, you dive into a really robust and diverse history where you have titans of industry uniting across industry and building this structure. it was burned down in 1906 and quickly rebuilt thereafter, which has become a relic unlike many others in the city's registry in that it has a really robust manufacturing history in san francisco that really doesn't exist anymore. a lot of the context

surrounding this building, a lot of the manufacturing industry, particularly the coffee manufacturing industry, and to recognize that san francisco was an international hub and leader in coffee production during this time, a lot of that history is lost, and it's represented by this building. it's a gorgeous building. when you look at it and you're down in the district, you can absolve yourself in the industry powers and really immense yourself in the architecture that existed in the late 19 century and early 20. i will turn it back over to pilar. a couple of notes that i'm sure pilar will mention, exterior alterations appears to me to be mostly the removal of stucco

with sand blasting that may have caused a little bit of damage, as well. it seems to me that other features, such as windows, have a particular life span to them. that should not be surprising in the context of any building that we're talking about, and i hope that any future project on this building that we're talking about would consider bringing back some of that historically significant exterior -- those exterior elements, and that's all i'll say about that, and i'll turn it back over to pilar. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you, lee. thank you, josey. good afternoon, commissioners. pilar lavalley, planning department staff. before you is a consideration for landmark designation of 447

battery street, a.k.a. the jones-thierbach coffee company building. on january 12, 2021, supervisor peskin initiated the designation by the board of supervisors. designed by architect frank van tree and constructed in 1907 it in on the corner of market and battery street and housed the jones-thierbach coffee company, a wholesale roasting and roasting company. as you can see in those photos,

storefront and windows, particularly on battery street, are modern replacements. next slide. in the late 1960s, as was mentioned previously, the brick -- or the facades were sand blasted to remove the stucco sand blasting. next slide, please. although altered, the building appears to be eligible for designation as a san francisco landmark for association with the san francisco coffee bean industry. a significant commercial sector in san francisco in the late 19 century and early part of the

20 century and reconstruction of san francisco after the 1906 earthquake and fires. the building is also architecturally significant as a surviving example of the brick store and warehouse type that was common during the 19 and early 20 centuries, but that has become increasingly rare in the broader north of market. as noted in the property owner communication, historic preservation commission has previously reviewed and comments on a draft e.i.r. that is being prepared for a project at this property.

the department believes that this property meets the landmark requirements and that designation is warranted, and recommends that the commission approve the recommendation, which will then be forwarded to the board of supervisors. i believe that the project sponsor and their representative are on the line and would like to make comments to the commission. thank you. that completes my presentation. >> clerk: thank you, pilar. is there any other presentation? >> i'm not 100% sure, but is there someone -- do you see -- >> clerk: yeah, mr. zucker, do you have a presentation? >> not a slide, but a verbal. do i have it correct that i get

three minutes? >> clerk: well, you actually have five, but three would be great. >> thank you. justin zucker from reuben, junius, and rose. we would preserve the existing facade and would incorporate a thoughtfully designed addition that would bring new life to the building and neighborhood. the proposed project has gone through extensive review, having come to this commission twice before, and it has gone before the planning commission on november 12, 2020, for review of the draft e.i.r. during those multiple hearings and throughout the prior six years before this proposal, never was the building described as a historic building worthy of landmark designation. in fact, page and turn ball and

a.r.g., after extensive research and analysis, concluded that the building is not a historic resource. during that hearing, this building provided the comments of existing recommendations, and those were considered and implemented in full. ownership is opposed to the landmark designation. as noted, the period of significance is 1907 to 1967, yet the original building had a stucco facade up to the late 60s, when it was removed, when the building was converted to office use, approximately 1967, after the period of

significance. while we disagree with the assertion that the existing building is worthy of landmark designation, management urges that the three story footprint and facade characteristic be removed as it would severely limit the existing project. if designated as proposed, the city would be forcing ownership to maintain the building at a cost in excess of the reasonably foreseeable rental income, taking the property from ownership. with cost of maintenance exceeding the income generated, it's likely to result in the

building falling into economic disrepair because of economic viability and not by choice. we urge removal of the three story height and roughly remember tangar footprint as a character dine -- rectangular footprint as a character defining feature. that concludes my presentation, but i and the sponsor will remain on the line for any questions. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, press star, three to be added to the queue, and you'll have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it's catherine petrin speaking in behalf of support of landmark designation for the

447 battery street property. the evaluation makes many salient points. the city's evaluation makes many salient points about the historical significance of the building, one of the buildings from the immediate post 1906 era. the building is one of the last surviving connections to the area's early 20 century history, and as a rare survivor, i would urge the commission to weigh the, what i would say lack of importance of some of the alterations, which i think are really quite minor. we support that cities -- the list of character defining features that was prepared as part of the evaluation,

including the importance of the masonry brick, and most especially, i'd like to call attention to heavy temper construction on the interior. this is a very rare kind of construction left, and we know that in the jackson square historic district, other buildings proposed for changes have been required to maintain their heavy timber instruction, so we hope that that would be the case here at the jones-thierbach building. thank you. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment on this item? seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and it is now before you, commissioners. >> thank you, jonas. are there any commissioners that would like to make comment on this agenda item?

commissioner nageswaran? >> boy, this is a tough one. i -- you know, i walked into it not looking at the other reports and just trying to see what i kind of thought of it. i -- i would say the history of this building is an important part of san francisco, but -- excuse me -- the threshold of a landmark should hold, you know, review to a higher standard than for a regular historic resource, and some of the points made, you know, are -- i think the significance under events is very compelling. under architecture, i would say

that this has worn over time. now that the stucco is gone, we don't have a concept of -- of what that appearance originally looks like, and there are a lot of brick buildings in the city that have that same sort of appearance with the exposed brick, and i also had worked a few years ago in jackson square, a little tiny brick building that had stucco that

was blasted off, and that damaged the surface. the perception of the upper parapet with its cobbling is sort of gone, and also doesn't help it breathe as a building's significance for coffee roasting. so i sort of hesitate to landmark a building which has some elements of significance which would constitute a historic resource versus landmarking it, and i still think that the specific history can be reflected some way in some way through interpretation, so those are my

initial comments. i'd love to hear what the other commissioners have to say. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner johns? >> well, i think commissioner nageswaran pretty much nailed it, at least for me. there's no question at all that the coffee -- i think san francisco was perhaps the largest in terms of volume port in the country for importing coffee. it's just -- it was a tremendously tremendously vital industry in san francisco. so as to that, the building's important as a physical thing, but as far as i'm concerned, it's been completely stripped. as part of that fad during the 60s for earth colors and

exposed brick, no matter how ugly the exposed brick was, and that full aesthetic was -- was important in san francisco, or at least popular, but i think it pretty much did this building in, so i'm really not convinced, that as a building, there's much left to landmark. thanks. >> are there any other commissioners that wish to make comments? commissioner black? commissioner black, you're on mute. >> thank you. apologies. i appreciate the comments that my fellow commissioners have

made thus far. i agree strongly that the coffee roasting business was huge in san francisco, and there's -- there's value in that. everything -- even though the building has been compromised, i do think it's important, especially in this part of the city, that people are reminded what the streetscape was like, what the early 19 -- or 20 century streetscape was, and i would at least like to see this building -- and i see we agreed when we reviewed this -- the facade of the building be retained, and i think that's an important element to this project. it reminds people of what the

neighborhood was before, and we've seen such huge changes to the city skyline and streetscape over the last 20 years. this is a way of reminding people what was there originally, both in terms of use and as well as building form. >> thank you. are there any other commissioners who would like to make a comment? well, before i think we entertain a motion or if any of the commissioners would like to make a motion, i would just like to make a comment and wholly agree with commissioner black. i think that staff, and i believe that all of us relied on the objectivity of staff to provide very good and objective analysis when they are asked to put together a report to line

out landmark designation, and i think that pilar put out a good report laying out the pros and cons, but i think this is worthy of landmark designation status. i'd like to see if any of the commissioners would like to entertain a motion or possibly make amendments to the motion that is before us. so i see that commissioner foley is interested in making public comment? >> thank you, president matsuda. i would actually like to say that i agree with commissioner black around how big the coffee business was in san francisco. in fact, when myers family, the russian jews that emigrated over here, and we saw their third street project in front of us a couple of weeks ago, they actually introduced me to somebody else, and that's

m.j.b. coffee, and m.j.b. coffee, you can actually see some of their signs in the south of market. and i agree with commissioner black, that the coffee industry was a really important part of the city, and that's the end of my comment. >> so the commissioners, do any of you want to entertain the motion of supporting the agenda item before us? any other commissioners interested in making public comment about this agenda item? >> clerk: commission president matsuda, if i may, if none of the commissioners are in support of recommending that the board of supervisors landmark this property, you

could potentially incorporate some of the findings that have already been made into findings and make an alternate recommendation to the board of supervisors, not necessarily supporting landmark designation but supporting retention of the facade, supporting it as a historic resource, but forwarding a resolution where you are not recommending that they adopt landmark status for this property. >> so jonas, if you could further clarify me, if we could make a memo, i guess, back to the board that says there were some commissioners in support of initiating or in support of the initiation of landmark status, and then there were other commissioner that's had

concerns and list the -- commissioners that had concerns and then sort of list the concerns. could you sort of share with me the procedure. is there a possibility that can could come back to the -- that it could come back to the commission at possibly a later date and maybe having it more narrowly defined? >> clerk: i'm not sure if there's support today for landmark designation unless the seats on the commission change, coming back in the future wouldn't change that very much. i guess what i'm suggesting is that the resolution be forwarded to the board of supervisors with essentially findings that have been articulated by the commissioners that have found it is a resource but not necessarily to the level of landmark designation, and i think if there was a motion that was adopting a motion to

not designate, that the votes against would demonstrate that some of the commissioners were not in favor. we could also forward a motion that would recommend adoption as drafted, and their vote would demonstrate that they're not in favor of landmark designation. so because i did not hear a motion to adopt from landmark designation was to forward to the board of supervisors your comments in formal findings. >> if i may, this is victoria wong from city attorney's office. i just wanted to call the commission's attention to

10.401 of the code which addresses landmarking, and when a landmarking is referred to the commission for a decision on whether to recommend landmarking -- i'm sorry, section 10.04.02, it states, where the board of supervisors has referred an initiation of designation to h.p.c., h.p.c. shall hold a public hearing and approve, disapprove, or modify the proposal within 90 days of the date of approval. such an action shall constitute approval, so i just want to make sure that the commission is aware of that. and also, just to remind the commission that consideration of features of a project on this site are separate from the consideration of whether this particular property is recommended for landmarking in its current form.

>> clerk: thank you, vickie. vickie, given that this was initiated by the board of supervisors, if the commission chooses -- if the historic preservation commission chooses to disapprove, it still gets forwarded to the board of supervisors for their consideration? >> yes, that's correct. it would not prevent them from adopting an ordinance to landmark the building. it would just document the commission's approval, disapproval, or modification recommendation. >> and i'm sorry. just one more time, to our city attorney. so if the commission today were to vote, and there was a vote to disapprove -- some were to vote to disapprove, this goes back to the board, and the board will then be able to review it and vote to initiate landmark designation, is that correct? >> yes, it's been initiated.

so even if the commission votes against designation, the board can still vote for landmark ordinance. >> thank you very much for clarifying the procedure, and i do see that we have some commissioners who would like to make some public comment. so commissioner nageswaran? >> so a couple things might help the kmugs. from -- might help the commission. from what i understand about the process, it went through stipulation to retain the facade, and that was part of -- i see the mitigation in the e.i.r. process.

so is there a worry that the facade would not be maintained if there was not a landmark designation status? there was a mark that the floor, they didn't want to be part of the character defining features, and basically, they're retaining that. i'm not sure what the conflict here is, but if the project is moving forward with the facades, and if that is

acceptable to commissioners, then that might not be a worry. and as far as voting for, you know, the landmarking, if there are -- if there's a majority vote to landmark, that would be passed on, would it not? it doesn't need to be unanimous, does it? >> it does not, that's correct. and did you want, commissioner nageswaran, for staff to come back and to confirm? >> yeah. i mean, besides the history, is there some other thing that i'm missing besides the facade if we don't designate as a landmark? >> so pilar, could we ask you to come back on and answer commissioner nageswaran's

question? >> yeah. pilar lavalley. my understanding is nothing as changed in terms of the project that was reviewed and analyzed in that draft e.i.r., so beyond that, i don't think i can say much more about that actual project. >> can you remind me if that building was a category a building before it was landmarked? >> yes. before it was landmarked, so it was a category a building prior to the analysis that was done for the draft e.i.r. through the adoption of the junior league survey in 1968. initial analysis was done as

part of its historic resource status, and there were -- there was a conflict of opinions between the consultant and the department on that, but it was found to be or reaffirmed to be a historic resource for the purposes of ceqa and treated as such in the analysis for that draft e.i.r. >> and what was the threshold that pushed it to the landmark designation in your -- in your -- >> i mean, i think that the supervisor initiated it, and really, the designation actually that was put together that relied strongly on the

resource [inaudible] that that's your purview, and i'm happy to make those modifications over the course of this conversation. >> thank you. commissioner nageswaran, are you satisfied -- >> i guess one of the modifications that could be made is to take the criteria

three for architecture out of it. that's potentially something that can be done. i don't know if it would push me over the edge, but that's something that would be possible? >> staff -- yes, i think that's possible. in addition to modifying, you could change from approval to disapproval, as well. >> thank you. that's all my questions. >> thank you. commissioner black? so i'm leaning a little bit more in the camp for approval, but i had a couple of questions. pilar, can you remind me, under the draft e.i.r. options, was there a total demo option?

>> do you mean under alternatives? i believe the project was proposed and why the e.i.r. was done, the analysis was done is initially the proposal was demolition, and so now, it's been modified through that process, i believe. >> right. so it would be up to the board of supervisors to make the ultimate decide on the e.i.r., or maybe it's the planning commission who makes the final decision on the e.i.r.? >> it will go to the board ultimately. >> it goes to the board? thank you, and it has not yet gone to the board, the e.i.r., is that correct? anybody know? >> i'm sorry. i don't know.

i think alison vanderslice -- >> sure. happy to jump in. the e.i.r. does not require board of supervisors adoption. it has -- the project has not yet advanced all the way through the planning commission. >> yeah, i wanted to clarify that, right. it's gone through draft environmental impact report. it's gone to the board of supervisors for public comment and the planning commission for comment, but it has not gone through the r.t.c. for final certification. can we refer this back to the city attorney, just how much detail can we get into on the environmental impact report? staff is happy to answer questions, but we want to make sure that questions can be answered as part of this. >> clerk: just to clarify, also, that when the planning

commission certifies the e.i.r., it's still appealable to the board of supervisors. >> the reason for my question was background. so we actually heard the project proponent suggest that if we approve, if we landmark this, that we remove the height, the three story height as a character defining feature, and apparently, they have a concern about the rectangular footprint. so that's another option for us, i believe, is to approve it but remove one of the character defining features. i don't know how staff feel about that or how my fellow commissioners feel about that? >> and i think that commissioner nageswaran was

thinking that there might be another character defining feature that would be removed and then considered. if you could hold that thought, commissioner black? >> sure. >> if you have other thoughts, then i'm going to ask commissioner johns to make his comments, and then, we can go back and have that discussion. >> okay. thank you. well, it's -- one of the things that i think is -- i know it's worrying me, and i think it may be worrying some other commissioners, too, is we have had this matter before us, and we have discussed the features and the quality of the building. and as i recall, there was support for allowing the -- the new building to go forward but preserving the facade so as to

remind everything what the building looked like at one time. so what seems to me [inaudible] support is a motion to approve the -- recommend approval of the landmark but take out the -- i think commissioner nageswaran referred to it as number three, but however it was, to take that out to address her concern, and as to the other thing i think we should take out, is calling is a feature, this -- well, the recommendation that the building owner made, whether it's the three-story or it's

the volume or however it is, and i can't express that as well as i should be able to but if we were take out those two things as character defining features, then i'd be in favor of sending it off to the board of supervisors so it can make its own decision. >> thank you very much. commissioner nageswaran? i'm sorry. miss vanderslice, did you want to make further comment or was that some -- >> oh, no, i can be available to answer questions on e.i.r. as needed just for background in regards to the landmarking if there's additional questions. >> sorry. sorry. i saw your name and wasn't sure when that popped up. so commissioner nageswaran?

>> so i think commissioner johns brought it to a little bit more clarity, yes. i was thinking that i'm still confused about the project sponsor's request about the three-story in the form. even if the rectangular form were taken out, a portion of the building still needs to remain in order to convey historical importance, so i still feel like the character defining features are still worthy of being retained, although maybe not the brick work per se, but the volume of

the building. so that's the only clarification i have, but again, i'm really riding the fence on this one, but again, i'll hear what everybody says. >> okay. commissioner so? >> hi. i agree with a lot of our debate here. i wanted to -- this project is not new, we're all really familiar with it. it came to us a few times, like, as commissioner black and commissioner johns have mentioned. we all remember that. my memory tells me that it's always been, no matter whether it's a full preservation or partial preservation options, the facade of existing brick portion is always to be -- remain, and i'd like to clarify with commissioner nageswaran, were you suggesting to recommend taking out the

architectural character defining feature number three, meaning that the project sponsor can demolish the brick? >> so there's a distinction in preservation. a building is evaluated under the three -- there's four criteria, right? so there's events, people, architecture, and then archaeology. >> right. i understand that. if we motion to take that out, that means the project sponsor can go back and do a whole pure wall 15-story hotel. >> no, i was trying to go back and explain, and i know you know this, but i was trying to be more public. the third category of

architecture is just saying that it's not architecturally significant, but its presence is still important for events, and the features, including the volume and height of the building, are still important to express the significance under events, which is the criteria one. >> so can the project sponsor replace the brick with stucco or timber. so long as they maintain the structure and the facade, they can turn it into a wood shingle siding, too, if we motion to take that out. >> that's a very good point, and that's why -- [inaudible] >> i think there's a difference between the category of going through these designations for landmarks, compared to what we have originally been reviewing

this project for so long, this project, it's already a category a, it has certainly language patterns that are established with not just the massing but the materiality, so i just want to share with all of you, if we decided to do certain things here, we might end up opening up another possibility to see this project coming back again in my wood cladding or glass cladding, or just so long as we -- that we're maintaining a box with the same punch window, and i don't think that's what i would like to see this project moving forward. i would like to actually perhaps really highly recommend the project property owner, the project sponsor, actually really reach out to the supervisors and actually have really good candid conversations about why we're here today.

i think that doing this landmark designation is a pretty expensive and exhausting, and it seems like we're still talking about the building will still end up looking the way the project sponsor for the hotel is going to look like, so that's just something, today, the designation, to turn it into landmark, it seems to be a bit excessive for what this project is. but then, i do agree that this whole original -- the whole e.i.r. of this project -- there

is concerns about the immediate future of how this building, it's going to shape the neighborhood context. if you look more than just the three story, i think this is mostly the issue here, but it's not on the agenda item. so i am -- i would not recommend, actually, taking out the architectural feature from this landmark destination, but i, in general, have some reservations about why we need to turn this into a landmark designation. but i do agree that, to honor, this is one of the very few coffee industry that we have for the history of san francisco. that is something worthy to

consider, so i would like that to -- i would support that. >> thank you. city attorney wong, would you like to provide any clarification? >> yes. i would like to comment about the e.i.r. process in general, and yes, i just wanted to make sure that the commission understands that any certification for e.i.r. is available to the board. i just want to reiterate, and i

think this is reflected in commissioner so's comments, as well, but whether the property is eligible for landmark designation based on article 10 criteria, so i just wanted to remind the board that the article 10 criteria are the basis for the commission's decision to landmark, and if you feel the character defining features in the ordinance are not appropriate, then certainly, you know, the commission has the prerogative to modify or remove or make a recommendation to change those, but the project itself is not before the commission today as

far as what the project would look like and as far as how it would come out. >> thank you for narrowing our discussion to the analysis of that particular area. commissioner black? >> if you go to [inaudible] that was prepared, it listed the character defining features, and one is the roughly rectangular footprint and three-story height. i remain convinced that the supervisor placed this as a landmark specifically because

he had concerns about the loss of building volume, so he might not be happy removing that, but that may be where i'm hearing the majority of the commissioners thinking, is that we've already gone down the road of allowing a vertical addition, including a hyphen, and therefore, that might not why we don't want to landmark this. but if we remove that character defining feature, it would still preserve the brick walls constructed of masonry, room space facing the streets.

i don't know if that solves any problem, but it's at least a way of preserving the facade. >> and i'm hearing that as a motion that you would like to propose or -- >> sure. i'm happy to make a motion, and we'll see where it goes. >> okay. great. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> this would be a motion to eliminate the character defining feature number one in the ordinance -- as defined in the ordinance. >> okay. i'm going to ask you to hold that thought and keep that motion, and i'm going to ask other commissioners to make their comments. >> clerk: commissioner matsuda, i apologize to interject, but based on the fact that a motion

has been made, is any other commissioner interested in seconding that motion? >> yes, i second that motion. >> clerk: yes, just so we can have a motion to be seconded that can be called. >> mr. hepner? >> whoa, whoa, whoa. i'm not quite finished. >> sorry. >> one thing that i think our city attorney was helpful, and other commissioners' comments helped me a great deal, you know, we always have to remind ourselves, or at least i do, that this is an advisory commission. we are not the body that's finally going to determine what's going to happen to this piece of property or this building, and the time that this has happened before on this commission, we've been asked to define certain things.

namely, the adequacy of the alternatives that were proposed in the e.i.r., and today, we've been asked to advise the board of supervisors on whether or not this structure meets the minimum requirements such that it would be appropriate for the board of supervisors to landmark it or not. but we're not the ones who decide what happens to this building, it's the board of supervisors. so i think we should keep that in mind, and i think commissioner black brought forward her motion in a way that made me want to second it, but i think we should keep in mind what we're being asked to do. >> mr. hepner, did you want

to -- >> sure, only briefly, commissioners, just to respond to a couple of comments. i think deputy city attorney wong put it best. the project is not before the commission today, and i want to make that clear. what's before this commission today is whether this structure is eligible and worthy of landmark designation, and beyond that, what features should be included in that designation. so i wanted to separate these two, the project from the landmark designation. oftentimes, you know, hear about a project is how we -- you know, then, you know, dispensary sources in a way of prioritizing things to move forward with the landmark

designations. in that same context, i want to remark that it's really up to this commission if the three-story height and the roughly rectangular footprint are part of the key features here or whether it's just the facade, and i would argue in support of the department that the roughly rectangular footprint and three-story height were included in that process, and i would strongly urge the commission to that recommendation, but that decision is up to the commission. >> thank you. commissioner nageswaran? >> so as far as commissioner black's recommendation or motion, i feel like the character -- i reread those -- those character defining features, and i -- i actually -- i feel like those are worth keeping if we have

any kind of significance to this building that's worth landmarking, all those characteristics are worth keeping. and the only thing i was considering removing was criteria three, for landmark architecture, but it's no longer worthy of consideration because of loss of historic architecture and windows and historic finish. there are still historical features that are applied to the significant events, so i would not take away the -- the three-story rectangular form, and so i just want to clarify that. thanks. >> okay.

commissioner nageswaran, is there a motion that you would like to propose to the commission? is that a motion, jonas? okay. it is not. it is just comment. pilar, did you want to share some further information that maybe can help us start to further deliberate this agenda item? >> i'm not sure it'll help or not, but i did want to remind the commission that part of part of why we look at architecture is because it's important in putting together findings for any certificate of appropriateness that might be needed for any proposed project. so it would, i think help if

there was a finding in your recommendation that clarified what commissioner nageswaran was saying and commissioners black and johns had kind of argued -- or recommended, which is removing a character defining feature, which is your purview, which is fine, but i think it would be helpful if you could also articulation in the resolution how that does or does not detract from one area of significance or not. i think it would be clearer to remove the architectural

criterion. >> so implementing both that commissioner nageswaran was commenting on, and then, the motion as it is right now. is that what you're referring to? >> i think there could be a character defining footprint with also a suggestion that the building doesn't necessarily retain as much architectural significance and maybe doesn't meet that criteria. >> clerk: pilar, if i may, i think commissioner nageswaran's and johns' comments at the

outset of deliberation captured those in some formal findings that we may be able to incorporate in a resolution if the commission chooses to adopt this motion as has been placed on the table. >> so if the commission chooses to adopt this motion as has been proposed by commissioner black and seconded by commissioner johns, we can add further information for the board and staff about the comments that have been made so that there's a further definition and further clarity? >> clerk: well, yes. you can certainly do all of those things, but what i was simply suggesting is i feel like what i've heard in

deliberations is that there's some consensus and what commissioner johns and commissioner nageswaran initially articulated could be incorporated in the resolution as findings and what allie was recommending in the motion as it relates to the architecture and the suggest of removing the character defining feature with regards to the height and shape of the building. >> yeah, that's fine. thank you. okay. so it's my understanding we have a motion, and we have a second on that motion, and i don't see any other commissioners asking, requesting to speak. >> clerk: shall i call that question, then? >> i think so. >> clerk: okay. and commissioners, just for clarity, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a

resolution recommending approval of landmark designation to the board of supervisors with amendments to include findings as articulated by commissioners nageswaran and johns and removing the character defining feature associated with the three-story height and rectangular shape of the building. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, 5-1, with commissioner nageswaran voting against. thank you for that, commissioners. we should pause briefly, and i suggested that commissioner wright follow these proceedings on sfgovtv, either streaming or

watching on television. i know there is a slightly delay, but at this time, commissioner wright, if you are viewing, please do join these proceedings so that we can call the next item. >> jonas, it's not this agenda item, but it's the following agenda item that commissioner [inaudible] needs to recuse himself? >> clerk: i'm sorry. >> it's the 2500 mariposa item that we will have commissioners recusing themselves? >> clerk: that is my understanding. >> okay. is commissioner wright back with us?

>> clerk: okay. i received notice that he is rejoining us, and i see that commissioner wright has rejoined the meeting, so we can move onto item 7, 2021-001636psa, at 161 steuart street, a permit to alter. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> i am. >> clerk: okay. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

jonathan vimr, project staff. this is a request for a permit to alter to install a new inclined lift meeting accessibility requirements at the existing exterior stair alcove for the primary embarcadero entry. department staff finds that the define satisfies the requirements of article 11 of the planning code and the secretary of interior standards as the lift would be slim in profile and nope design to maintain the alcove volume. further, the proposed black powder coated finish would allow the lift to proceed with shadow, particularly during the day. no public correspondence related to this project has

been received. based on this analysis and that found in your packets, staff therefore recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. i believe that the project sponsor is in attendance and may want to add some comments. >> clerk: great. thank you. project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> hi. can you hear me all right? >> clerk: yes. >> my name is megan padalecki, and i am with stanton architecture, and i am representing the project sponsor. if we could go to slide 2. the proposed project is located on the eastern frontage of the building 166 through 169 embarcadero, in the historic

army navy ymca. it's designated as a category two significant building with alterations per article 11, and these alterations are predominantly visible on steuart street as well as on the interior. in addition, the building is separated from the port of san francisco and embarcadero historic district by six lanes of traffic and a light rail track. in this view, the building has three tenants. the ymca, a port building, and zumo, a japanese restaurant. there is currently no accessible entrance from the embarcadero. for photos of the kmist r

existing alcove, there are five steps to climb to reach a secondary entrance to each tenancy. a disabled individual would need to travel almost 700 feet around the block for an accessible entrance, which i should note is almost two football fields long. next slide. installation of this disabled lift will benefit all three tenants, but the work is primarily sponsored by ozuma restaurant. this proposal for dining is in the spirit of the previous restaurants who are fortunate to have ground floor access to their frontages, which ozuma

does not. next slide. in studying the possibilities for creating access across this height of five risers, our team quickly determined that a lift was the most efficient solution. at each tread, each strut is bolted to the stair, which has a terrazo finish. when not in use, the lift platform is folded upright, and this is critical because it allows us to meet the code minimums for exit of the building, and you can see the proposal for the dining off to

the right. slide nine, please. all lift components will be custom coated in powder jet black, including the box at the top and bottom landing. these two photos include some examples from a survey, which our team performed from the manufacturer, pacific lift. so on the left, we see 1300 van ness, the regency center. on the right, 825 battery, which has not one but two lifts and is, of the grouping that we've gathered, the closest in proximity to our building. slide 11, please. two additional examples.

one as see's candy, at fisherman's wharf, 645 beach street, and the sutter hotel, built in 1925, so similar completion year to our project, and these indicate what the historic designations are of each property. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> clerk: great, thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star then three. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, commissioners, public comment on this item is closed and the matter is now before you. >> great. any members of the commission wish to make comment -- public comment? oh, no one? any members of the -- commissioner foley? >> i've eaten there many times, and i think what they've designed makes sense and looks

good, and that's the end of my comment. >> is that a motion, commissioner foley? >> that is a motion to approve. >> second. >> clerk: okay. seeing no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> i actually had a question. >> sure. >> i heard the description of the lift that was presented to me. it looked like in the details that it was a powder coated stainless steel, and i was just curious. can you hear me okay? i'm just curious if it is stainless steel or steel, i'm

concerned about the durability and corrosion resistance. and i noted in the photos that the rails are brass, and i wonder if there's something that's more compatible. >> i can respond to your first question regarding the powder coating. lifted cannot actually release lift -- lifts cannot actually release lifts for customization, so it's powder coat over steel, and with the equipment, i believe we landed on black so as not to compete

or imply that this was part of the original construction. >> megan summed it up perfectly there. i think they decided that we have this new 2021 kind of alteration read as distinction from the brass railing that went in several decades ago. several, there is the flexibility with that to consider additional finishes, but that is the department's decision. >> the brass finish is a possibility that could be considered if the black is a

finish that we're going -- that we're going to consider or approve. i would think that a more matte color or sheen might detract less than a shiny one. >> thank you for your comments, commissioner. we do agree, and we do require as a condition that a material sample be required to the department staff for review and approval. we would also look to a matte and kind of flatter finish. we try to avoid glossiness or reflectivity. i just want to say that the brass isn't original, either, so we're trying to have the two different intrusions into the alcove read differently, either of which is original.

>> okay. commissioner wright, does that answer your question? >> yes. >> okay. great. so i think we have a motion and we have a second? did you wish to make comment -- commissioner nageswaran, did you wish to make comment? >> i had a comment. >> sure. >> so i'm agreeing with commissioner wright in that the coloring of the lift, you're going to perceive that it's different, but not in a positive way. it's going to show up more, so

using brass like the previous railing that's not historic is compatible and it doesn't make a statement and allows the building to read. i'm curious, like, as a powder coating -- and maybe commissioner wright knows this -- okay to be on stainless steel? stainless steel doesn't necessarily take coatings that well, but that's necessarily a separate issue. any way, the coating, i agree with commissioner wright on that. >> commissioner foley? >> yeah, i think that it's important that, you know, the staff and the project sponsor and the person that's actually building this lift, they're going to do the best job they can with whatever -- the right product and the right

durability, so i would say we give the authority to the staff to make these final color modifications, and that would be my recommendation. >> as the person who seconded that, i agree with that. >> okay. commissioner wright? >> and this is just to respond to commissioner nageswaran's question about coating durability. i don't know whether or not powder coating -- is sounds like it's possible. if the manufacturer knows that it can be applied to stainless steel. i know that there are other types of coatings that are very durable, but as long as it's stainless steel that is coated, we don't have to worry about

degradation or corrosion that would affect other materials. >> okay. thank you. so i'm seeing no further requests to speak from the commissioners, so jonas, i think we're ready to vote on this agenda item. >> clerk: indeed. thank you for all of that. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions, and commissioner foley, there is a condition of approval, and it's the only condition of approval, prior for painting, the project sponsor shall provide a swatch or sample to the department for

approval. i believe it does address concerns of the finish of the paint, color of the paint, whether it will attach itself to the stainless steel. unless i hear otherwise, i will presume we call this question without consideration to other conditions. >> yes. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and that will place us on item 8 for case 2019-021884env for 2500 mariposa street for your review and comment. i understand that one or more

commissioners may be requesting reaccusal. >> commissioner foley requesting recusal. >> commissioner black requesting recusal. the firm i work for may be working on this in the future. >> so may i have a motion to approve to recuse commissioners nageswaran and foley. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners. on that motion to remove commissioners nageswaran and commissioner foley -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. commissioners, as the city attorney's office has advised, you should completely log out of these proceedings, and as i suggested to commissioner wright previously, you can

follow us on sfgovtv our on our website as to when we would conclude this item then to join us for the final item on the agenda today, and you do need to file your ethics findings. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> jonas, i would like to make some comments before the presentation? >> clerk: very good, miss vanderslice. >> good afternoon, president matsuda and members of the commission. alison vanderslice. [inaudible] in more detail during the staff presentation, the item before you is an opportunity to receive public comment and to provide comments on the draft environmental impact report for the sfmta potrero yard project. this draf e.i.r. is brought before you as a significant

impact with identify to a historical resource. the department is requesting your comments on the adequacy of the e.i.r., specifically, the designation of historical resources, the mitigation measures, and alternatives. the full preservation alternative was revised, and that was presented in the full draft e.i.r. today. your comments will be recorded and responded to in a response to comments document. additionally, your comments will be transmitted to the planning commission. joining me is the e.i.r. manager for the project, and michael christiansen, senior current planner. members of the sfmta project

team are present, as well, and before i turn it over to justin, i would like to turn it over to the project sponsor to make a few comments. >> [inaudible] and modernize the sfmta's aging facility. the program's goals are to

modernize the sfmta's aging facilities in order to meet the growing needs of transit in san francisco, to improve the transit facilities and to provide public benefit through transportation, housing, place making, neighborhood amenities, and sustainability, creating a visibility and sustainability neighborhood. [inaudible] a bit about the 4.4 acre existing site outlined in red. [inaudible] outlined in yellow.

a quick look at potrero yard. [inaudible] in addition, the yard is home to the bus that will serve van ness b.r.t. route upon its completion. therefore, the sfmta must expand bus capacity in order to [inaudible] electric buses

consistent with the state mandate which is to have 100% zero emissions. [inaudible]. >> thanks, david. my name is lucy, and i'm project manager for the potrero yard modernization project.

the project is a collaboration of several city departments, including the mayor's office of housing and community development, planning, oewd, and public works. the project represents more than the sfmta's capital needs. it's an ambitious project to address multiple project needs on a single city site. next slide. [please stand by]

>> for the project agreement. and that is the end of my remarks. >> thank you. i'm going to go ahead and switch over to a different presentation. if i can figure out how to do that.

good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is the proposed project for the draft environmental impact report. the planning department to require a noticed public hearing for the historic preservation commission has. the commissioners comments submitted prior to the hearing. commission members were sent

electronic companies, today we're here to provide public testimony to discuss issues pertaining to this project and any comments you may wish to submit to this project on the draft eir. i'm going to provide a brief view of the project site in the mission neighborhood.

the project site is outlined in red. the building itself is a two story designed in renaissance revival style. it's divided into two sections. the ground floor includes wide spaces for the main pedestrian entrances. the building and platting stucco and embellished with a elementation. the second story elevations. the upper left floor features the same decorative detailing on

the facade. the bottom shows the street side from mariposa. replace with a 75 to 150-foot structure facility for residential and commercial uses.

design of the site is by the circulation and turning radius of the buses housed and maintained on the levels of this facility. reducing shadow on the park. which means amassing of the block systems shifted towards the street. you can see that in a little more detail here. the joint development will be comprised of floors seven

through 13. the building was constructed in 1915 and originally a single story car farm. the office wing and two additional maintenance shops. the building was designed by city engineer michael. the first facility constructed south of market street. it was constructed for maintenance and storage facility south of market. it's eligible under criterion three that embodies the design

of a master. pedestrian doors around which you can see on the bottom right corner here. the surviving metal windows and the flag pole. based on this is a historic resource for purposes of c.e.q.a. a rough eir found that it resulted in a destruction of a historical resource due to the fact that it's destroyed in its

entirety. [indiscernible]. the first measure requires the project sponsor to take record of the building and a salvage plan. a permanent display of materials and architectural features of the car barn. the plan to record oral histories pertaining to the project site. the proposed impact, it would remain significant and unavoidable. to address this unavoidable impact the eir proposed alternatives to the project.

exploring the range and met the basic objectives. we determined rehabilitation of the existing building was not considered a potentially feasible alternative. the department and sfmta reduce the visibility of the new construction. ultimately it was determined that the further set backs would limit the bus circulation ramps on the second and third levels

reducing capacity. sfmta explored reducing the length of the bus ramps but was not possible because the ramps were approaching the slopes due to the size of the site. in addition the h pc provided feedback on the full and partial preservation alternatives. the partial alternative remains unchanged from when it was last

seen. the h pc suggested some modifications from the alternative to make it less about maintaining and shaping the mass of the project to respond to the historic resources urban form. in response to the comments. the full preservation was modified. the housing component -- the range of alternates were adequate and met most of the basic project objectives. moving onto discuss the alternatives presented in the eir. the project site would continue

to function as a transit site in capacity. it will reduce impacts it won't meet any of the project objectives. it it will retain the new construction would be shifted to retain the two story office wing in its entirety. no vertical addition would propose the office weight. the retained portion of the building and incorporate a feet foot portion to the west. further, to retain the historic massing along the original building there would be rebuild as new construction and feature a fifteen foot set back to reference the historic massing at this location.

the building and coding level by eighty five feet and the street elevation. the residential would be shifted towards the western portion of the site. there have been new construction responding to the new massing in height. off the location of the historic building the set back from the

upper transit level and the new hampshire street if as aid faca. alternative c which is the partial alternative that was explored similar that was presented due to their favorable comments. let entire two story office portion would be retained but the remainder of the building beyond the office wing would be demolished. the podium levels with the retained office wing with a ten

food notch at the west. alternative c would meet or partially meet most of the building objectives. sixteen maintenance repair bays. alternative c would retain the office wing and most of the character defining features, new construction would not be

compatible with the height and massing of the overall historical resource. although the impact would be to a lesser extent to the proposed project. unless alternative d referred to the transit alternative a 70-foot tall structure in the same capacity of the proposed project. this would not include the residential uses within the facility. similar to this impact the entire building would still be demolished. it would be implemented under this alternative.

the following community out reach -- before i conclude i

would like to remind everyone that a public hearing before the planning commission is is scheduled for august 26, 2021. comments must be submitted in writing. comments must be submitted by august 21, 2021. the planning department will publish a response relevent to all the comments. followed by the eir certification in 2022. this is the opportunity for the hbc to comment on the adequatey of the eir including the status

of the site, the range of alternatives presented. commission comments will be responded to in the response to comments document. i'm happy to answer any other questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. that includes staff presentation. we'll open up public comment. seeing no member of the public wishing to speak. public comment is closed. commissioners this is open to your review at this time. >> thank you. anyone wishing to make public comment on the draft eir? >> i would like to thank the department and the sfmta for

their efforts in looking into the full and partial preservation alternatives. i think my review so far, they look like they have done a good job of reducing some of the impact. >> thank you. any other commissioners wish to make public comment about the alternatives b and c or -- commissioner john. >> thank you. it's quite an effort there. to just come right down to it, i think that the analysis and the presentation is adequate. it addressed a number of things

that came up when this was where before us last time. there seems to be a little problem with some of the chat box. i noticed that commissioners at least on my screen appear to have wanted to talk. >> those were requests to be recused at the beginning of this item. >> i'm sorry. >> thank you. commissioner black. >> yes. i echo commissioner john's comments. first of all, unrelated to the draft eir, this is really a novel mix of uses. i'm not sure if there's any other developments that mix high

density residential, mix use commercial all with the same developers. that's quite a project. having said that, i agree with commissioner johns that the alternatives are adequate. i have no further comments. >> thank you. any other commissioners wishing to make comment? >> thank you for coming back here again, justin. this is a really full project presentation. i'm really happy to see it's continued to be further defined and flourished. i really appreciate the effort to go in depth and further study

about the alternatives. i really appreciate alternative c. mainly because we all need to know how we need to get the fine balance between preserving character defining features in our history and the new type of use for what we need in the city and in this case it's housing. i actually, i am recommending, preferring alternative c if this is what i can add as a comment. overall, b is good too. c is a reference point to study. i really hope that we won't be exhausting our resources to only give commercial alternatives instead of offering housing. that's my comment. thank you for all this good

work. it's very comprehensive. i really appreciate your slide about not just the matrix about dissecting the elements particular to eir but also the perspective images to the differences between the partial preservation alternative and what we need to mitigate. really well done. >> any other comments from the commission? i would just like to make a few. justin, i really think this has come a long way from when we last discussed this. i appreciate your work and the rest of the planning staff's work on providing clear and thoughtful analysis for preservation alternatives. the preservation alternatives offered today in this particular

draft eir are fully thought out from what we used to get. i think the planning staff should really be commended. i personally like alternative b. i think c has a lot of merit. when we look at these we have to -- we have to first acknowledge this is a historical resource, clearly acknowledge for the planning commission that it is an eligible resource for the california registry. if we're looking at mitigation measures for alternative c, under the oral histories it says to include former employees which i think is good. this has been around in this neighborhood for seventy years with a lot of users in this

area. having the ability for users and residents to make comment will be very important. this new proposal will really change the whole structure of what is happening there now. i think that we should have some kind of feedback from the actual community. i think i also wanted to talk about, this is just a comment just in general about creating a salvage plan. we think when we look at a historical resource it annes upp in a museum. salvage means you can use and reuse some of the things in existence now and in a meaningful way which brings more relevance to the historical resource.

to get people to see this on a daily basis on how history can be a daily use. one of the things this doesn't talk about is the historical resource. i want to see if there's a way to honor this resource. it's a building that's been around for a long time and for multiple uses. >> we should move onto the final

item on your agenda today which is item nine. delegation of minor scopes of work to the planning department. this is an amendment to the original delegation.

>> this friday at the planning department, the summer interns that have been very busy during these past couple months are going to have a final report or some findings in some reflections about their participation in various projects that they were asked to research and comment on this summer? >> they are scheduled to present their final program presentations by the sf young planners. >> i just wanted to invite the other commissioners if you have plans to join in on that. i think it's happening from 11

to 12:30 p.m. >> if you didn't receive an invitation and would like to participate in that meeting, i'd be happy to forward that to you.

item nine. for the delegation of minor scopes of work to the planning department. this is an amendment to the original delegation. >> on behalf of the preservation

management team, i want to introduce and thank monica and jonathan for their hard work leading up to the delegation agreement. as you see in your packet and the presentation these are important changes needed to the agreement. thank you again. i'll turn it over to you. thank you. >> thanks so much. it looks like john has the presentation going. good afternoon. planning department staff. we're happy to present to you today an update to the commission's delegation of minor

scopes of work. we're proposing some more substantive updates. as a remainder you'll need to make a motion. we have a couple of minor changes to language. we'll get to those an read them into the record. this may be somewhat remedial. we thought it would be helpful to speak about our current levels of scope review. essentially there are three tags of review for any permit of work. the first and easiest path is

for those scopes of work that are exempt from any entitlement review at all. these tend to be maintenance related, business signage. scopeses of work that we have already determined are not major in any way. they are always approved by preservation staff. there's always a level of expertise in the field of preservation. these are staff level entitlement approval. approved by this commission,

revived every couple of years, the delegation allows the commission to review the scopes of work but staff will approve. commissioners can elect to escalate an administrative level of appropriateness. while a scope may qualify as staff level review, it's up to the discretion of both staff and the commission to determine that's the appropriate path. there's always the opportunity to escalate. granted by the commission. we're all familiar with these. we call these old certificates of appropriateness and major certificates to alter. these are more intensive scopes of work. major alterations.

>> we also thought it might be helpful, we do have these delegated scopes of work how the timing is associated with it. the project applicant will submit the application forms with any documentation that they choose to initially submit. it will go into a queue and be assigned to a preservation planner who will review anything and provide revisions to conform to the planning code. there might be some back and forth with the sponsor, et cetera. it's in the right place and fully satisfied planning code and the standards. they will draft an approval letter. that will be reviewed by

supervisor rich. that will be issued out. it is sent out to all the commissioners on this body as well as a couple members of the public. that can be appealed and within 20 days. finally approved, planning department can sign off on any associated building permits. we thought while we're here, it might be helpful to give an update -- all the preservation

staff, these delegated entitlements are in each of the quadrants with a little bit of spill over. we have our survey teams. just a little update on staffing.

sorry, i would add a final note. thanks to the whole team for their efforts on this. it was a team effort over all. i want to call out those who collected the data on the census commission forms as well as all the items that have been heard on the consent calendar. >> we were able to run some numbers as part of our analysis of this huge project. interestingly we've only been doing delegated entitlement approvals since 2012. we've looked at 1071.

of those possible instances, only three times has this commission or a member of the public or staff asked that an administrative scope be escalated to a full public hearing. as you can see here zero times has the commission overturned staff's original analysis of the project. we just wanted to make sleer clr that you absolutely have the power to escalate this but very rarely does it happen and it's never resulted in overturning staff's analysis. it speaks to the quality of our analysis by everybody on our staff. this delegation gets reviewed and revised every couple of

years, that's why we're here today. we wanted to share what our overall goals were for this particular update. this is a good opportunity to stress that our intent was absolutely not at all to impact the number of items that this commission reviews and analyzes at a particular hearing. we want to ensure we're giving all of our applicants a path to approval that really are minor. that involved a lot of different approaches. we tried to focus mostly on data an evidence to do this to inform our edits. we combed through all the consent calendars and tried to find the most common project

types.

>> i can briefly go over items about our intent in updating it. delegating some of these scopes that previously were going to the preservation commission but almost always on the consent calendar or even heard but with no comment whatsoever.

a repeated one was moved to staff level approval. similar scenario with fire walls, mechanical openings, expanding window or door openings. moving those off of the work load and down to a delegated staff level. as a data point of all the items on the consent items roughly 20 percent. additionally aligning some

scopes that have certain exceptions from the planning code already like restrictions from the planning code. it would now be staff level approval. railings and things of that nature. height restrictions. infill additions. when you're enclosing a space in a canopy or room which are also heard on consent. landscape features. these are things that get out of neighborhood notification under 311 or don't constitute additions to height, we thought we would -- aligning with these also being heard on consent, they have specific intentions under the planning

code. moving these to staff level approval as well. >> we realized we were creating duplicative reviews.

the commission has to review the plan, by that the new land use will enhance the feasibility of preserving the building. rather than you have to that work twice, we just include these in the delegation as well. it should be said that more often than not, folks are not saying we absolutely have to build a huge vertical addition, if that were to ever happen, staff absolutely has the ability

to escalate that to a full hearing. more often it's maintenance an repair and window replacement or something like that. it's not that much of a reach. we wanted to make sure we were capturing it. finally we do have some modifications to language on two of our scopes that was recommended by our city attorney staff. scope 11 related to wireless tele communication services. modifications to such facilities that are considered substantial.

deleting the descriptive language that we had initially put in. the other modification would be to scope 21 which would be for adu's. it's really just changing that header. that's all we have for today. we have to thank elizabeth and rich for doing a ton of review on this with us. all of our colleagues at large we went through again and again with polls on what they would

like to see delegated or scopes of work they had to bring to a consent hearing. that's all we have for today. we're looking forward to a robust conversation about this. >> thank you. commissioners we have no members of the public in our attendee bucket. >> i'm going to say the same thing i say a lot. incredibly impressed. they do an incredible job. a lot of these things will make our life better an the public's life better. that's a critical thing.

we need to think about how to make people's live's easier. >> i'd like to thank planning staff as well. i would like to request clarity on the slide where you were talking about duplicative review. if you're proposing changes or what that was about in terms of review or one of us or of the staff or both? >> thanks for the question. the folks had already been included in the previous version of this. that is already included. like i said, it was a little bit misleading, i apologize for

that. our intent was to match that existing scope that we already have in our preservation land use. it a set of scopes that the owner hopes to accomplish in x number of years. i hope i clarified things. as it currently stands before you today, the revisions to the delegation, scopes of works are eligible for the delegated motion. they are eligible for administrative certificates of appropriateness already. nothing has changed in that regard? >> staff will continue to review the details of those maintenance plans but that it would so

continue to be part of the larger package submitted to the commission? >> absolutely. a new application still goes to the commission as it always would have before. staff making sure the scopes of work are appropriate. nothing has changed about that. the land use incentive plans. our intent was just to prevent you all making -- a permit to replace all of their windows. you don't need to see that at a full hearing again.

>> thank you. commissioner black. >> i absolutely support this. any actions that make planning building process easier, less expensive avoiding a hearing and time loss an cost while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the resource should absolutely be championed. that includes the creation of the new adu's. i'm just echoing what my fellow commissioners have said. i used to manage. the document that was submitted

was very helpful. the wording is clearer to the applicants as well. anytime you can make something user friendly to the public, i'm strongly in support. >> thank you. commissioner, johns. >> thank you very much. i too would like to just commend everybody that worked on this report for a truly excellent job. the analysis was very helpful. i support this. i just have one little thing. that is on the draft motion, page eight. number 20. we say infill garage door

openings. historical or not were a construction of net new residential, i believe the word net should perhaps be taken out. >> i was completely impressed by the the stream lining of all of this. it was so clear to having been in the thick of all these things as a preservation architect. i very much appreciated it. my comments are more of just kind of from the perspective a preservation architect.

i think what you have is an excellent outline. what i would kind of want to understand is can we with the appeals process, i know having done multiple projects where it's either had an unforseen condition or another issue onsite during construction and maybe i've had a difference of opinion from the planner and wanted an additional opinion, i felt like i couldn't do the option of appeal because it meant for usually these are small projects where, if it's a minor permit to alter, i could set aside 20 or 30 days for getting to a h pc. i don't know if the planning

department would consider reducing that time. we already know it's a staff delegation and it's not to the degree of public comment over all but maybe they want commentary from the h pc. that's the only thing i would say if we can approve that process, that would be helpful. the numbers presented with over a thousand cases and only three of them, i think a lot of that has to do with having to do construction in a certain period of time and not having the ability to go to the commission. that's something. and then kind of looking at the scopes of work, i can easily see the existing in kind repairs staff would easily cover that.

, you know a couple of things. the non visible features, the rear yard developments. adus which are under the house or behind the house. thinking about reducing staff load on those aspects, i wonder if we need to do that. not to say i'm right or wrong in this. i just want to understand better what that means for you. on the list for new features for primary facades with new doors or windows, store fronts,

garage, infill, i'm just wondering whether those are things that are very visually impactive and seem like bigger scopes of work. not speaking about existing features that would be repairs but actually new elements that would be added. we had a review in the past hearing for the building in union scare. we talked about the windows and the sizes of openings. the more public -- not to say that we have to have everything public. if there are these types of scopes of work that are visually impactful and may effect the

public and public right of way is there a way to find the size of what might come to the h pc. if it's a marquee, how do you know. i'm trying to understand that part of it. in the draft motion one of the -- the second item says that the straf's delegation will be the staff's delegation will be for two years. i didn't understand what that meant. >> i can chime in.

having the h pc opine on any certificate of appropriateness is the planning code. we have notice requirements that are mandated by the code that call out a 20 day notification period for anything that's brought forward to the planning commission. i know recently the h pc opined on the recovery act where the mayor considered reducing that timeframe where minor permits to alter and they get their timeframes reduced. ensuring they stay within that scope awnings or a new feature. one thing that we do have is the code in most of our historic lands and districts have criteria that staff has to

follow through with when adding features and ensuring compatibility with the district. we're still having to follow through with all of that and make the findings as is appropriate. what we're finding for example, with awnings or more modifications, those often impact small businesses. that type of review can honestly be better handled administratively rather than putting them fowrd through a public hearing. we're willing to work with staff on a lot of those concerns. >> one thing about that was about the appeal process an not about staff review initially. if there's some sort of conflict and the project sponsor wants to come to the h pc then that's

what i'm talking about. that appeal. >> sure. what we would probably do in that instance is if the sponsor disagrees, we would have them file a full certificate of a appropriateness. does staff have a good perspective of how we're rolling this out across the district or all the resources. if we have a sponsor that differs from that opinion. we would have the h pc opine on whether it's different or not. >> i just want there to be to go to a certificate of appropriate process to add thirty days to a construction period where they probably don't have that. i think the numbers you're getting for going to appeals is

a reflection of that. it's not that they don't want to do it but they don't see it as an option. >> we're happy to claire if a ch our sponsors. we're balancing the needs of and priorities for these areas. >> thank you. >> i'm going to make it really really short.

i really appreciate you always show us more up to date way of new organization and stream line how we are process. it's the best thing for us to know exactly what you have and plan for us to do so we can help you do our job even better. i love the graphic images and the crediting all the team mates. this is great. i love it. i also wanted to hope that some part of these presentations is being published online. readily. easily searched. so our general public will have a good understanding. it's the transparency of how to

navigate these and help the general public to help us to ease the process an the anxiety. i hope there's an easy to find button to show people this is how you do things through these new process. do you have it, right? you're going to put it on the website, right? that's all i have to say. thank you. i really hope that we have a really great rest of the day. >> just real quick. i think that all of us on this commission are really focused on the legacy businesses and small businesses and how difficult it's been to survive.

comments if that's okay. thank you for being very clear about the 1071 projects. i can tell you that this

delegation and your analysis

good morning phil. good morning san francisco. i am san francisco mayor london breed and i am so excited to be here with each and every one of you because san francisco although we're dealing with some challenges with this delta virus, we're still coming alive again, we're still re-opening, we're still wearing our masks. and what's most important, what's most important we are enjoying our city and we are making these cable cars available to the public, to san franciscans, for the month of august at no charge. so what does that mean? well, you know what happens when someone gives you something free. that means you have to be patient because during the month of august, typically what will be happening is these operators that are with me

today would normally be testing the equipment, making sure things are running smoothly, making sure that they are safe and making sure that the public is safe, so, please, listen to your operators, be patient, be understanding. this is a process. there is not going to be a complete time schedule, right. yes. but there will be fun and it is worth the wait. you know, san francisco, i can't think of this city without cable cars. and i can't think of this city without all of the great things that we know, love, and treasure. when people come to visit our city, they come downtown here in union square. they go to pier 39 and the fary building. they visit the crooked road on lumbard street. no trip to san francisco is complete without a ride on our cable car. so today, we are officially and

i see people are already lined up and waiting to go. we are officially making them available and, as i said to you all before, please be patient. please be understanding. we have just been through a very challenging 16 months with this pandemic and what that means is things won't just go back to the way that they used to be automatically. it requires all of us to be patient, all of us to be understanding and all of us to do everything we can to just really appreciate the fact that there were lives lost during this pandemic and we are still here, we're still standing and we're still able to enjoy the beauty of san francisco. so, with that, i'll just say have a good time and know and before i introduce jeff actuallin, you have to wear your mask on the cable cars and on muni at this time and please make sure you get vaccinated.

it's like this delta variant is like covid on steroids and it's important that people get vaccinated and most of the people coming through our hospital doors are not vaccinated. we want to get back to normal life. we don't want to shut this country down any longer than we have to so thank you all for being here today and without further adieu, i want to introduce the director jeff tumlin. >> thank you mayor breed. my name is jeffery tumlin and i'm proud to say that on this day, 148 years ago, andrew holiday tested what was then called holiday's falling. adapting obscure gold rush

mining technology in order to try to make a form of transportation that can bring san franciscans up and down our crazy hills. no one thought it would work. and cable cars became one of the most popular forms of public transportation in the city and allow the city to develop beyond the tiny clusters of buildings. we're so pleased that not only did the symbol of san francisco's enginuity survived, but the symbol of our resilience has survived as well. we're many efforts to try to shut them down so i'm so happy to be bringing these services

back and i have so many people i have to thank. i need to thank all of the cable car operates and administrators most of whom worked keeping the vaccination clinics running and doing a thousand other jobs as disaster service workers throughout the pandemic. and, they are here. we are so grateful to them. there are so many people who during the pandemic work to maintain our fleets and rebuild historic ancient cars but i particularly want to thank all of the crews, arnie hanson who delayed his retirement to make sure all of these services made it through the pandemic stronger than they were before so we can continue sustaining this great symbol of san francisco's resiliency. so, without any further adieu, i want to make a couple reminders. first of all, things are going to be a little rough. all three things are operating. they'll be operating from

around 7:00 a.m. to around 10:00 p.m. yes, you do need to wear your masks and without any further adieu, i want to invite all of you to join me and the mayor riding the cable cars half way to the stars and beyond. thank you so much. [cheers and applause]

>> as a woman of color who grew up in san francisco i understand how institutions can have an impact on communities of color. i think having my voice was important. that is where my passion lies when the opportunity to lead an office in such a new space came up. i couldn't turn it down. i was with the district attorney's office for a little over nine years, if you include

the time as an intern as well as volunteer da, all most 13 years. during the time with the da's office i had an opportunity to serve the community not only as the assistant district attorney but as director of community relations. that afforded the opportunity to have impact on the community in an immediate way. it is one thing to work to serve the rights of those without rights, victims. it is really rewarding to work to to further the goals of our office and the commitment we have as city employees and advocates for people who don't have a voice. i don't know of anyone surprised to see me in this role. maybe people have an impression what the director of the office of cannabis should be like, what their beliefs should be. i smash all of that. you grew up in the inner city of

san francisco. my career path is not traditional. i don't think a person should limit themselves to reach full potential. i say that to young women and girls. that is important. you want to see leadership that looks diverse because your path is not predetermined. i didn't wake up thinking i was going to be a prosecutor in my life. the city administrator reached out and wanted to have a conversation and gave me interest in the new role. i thought you must not know what i do for a living. it was the opposite. she had foresight in realizing it would be helpful for somebody not only a former prosecutor but interested in shaping criminal justice reform for the city would be the right person for the space. i appreciate the foresight of the mayor to be open how we can be leaders in san francisco. i was able to transition to the policy space.

here i was able to work on legislation, community relations, communication and start to shape the ways our office was going to reform the criminal justice system. it is fulfilling for me. i could create programs and see those impact people's lives. i am the change. it took truants youth to meet with civil rights movement leaders who fought to have access to education. being a young person to understand that helped the young people realize this was an important thing to give up. what we find is that young people who are truanted have a really high homicide rate in our city, which is a sad statistic. we want to change that. >> coming from a community we are black and brown. i don't reach out to other people. i don't think they feel the same way. >> i had the great opportunity

to work on prison reform issues and criminal justice reform issues. we created a program at san quentin where we brought district opportunities to lifers and talk about how we are all impacted by the criminal justice system. we brought over 40 elected das to san quentin for the situation. now we are inviting the police department. our formerly incarcerated group born out of this programming asked for the opportunity to work on a project where we could bring the men in blue on the outside to come speak to the men on blue inside to start the healing dialogue around how the criminal justice system specifically in san francisco impacts the community. i was attracted to the role. there was a component of equity that was part of this process. the equity community here in san francisco is a community that i

had already worked with. before i took steps to visit cannabis businesses i thought it was important my team have a chance to go inside and speak to men who had been impacted. that conversation needed to happen so we know how we are making an impact with the work that we are doing. the da's office as we were leading up to the legalization of marijuana in the state we started having conversations on the policy team what that could look like. the district attorney was really focused on the right side of history for this. we realized it would be quite a heavy lift for individuals who have been negatively impacted by the war on drugs to expunge the record. it was important to figure out the framework to make it seamless and easy. they put their minds to it after

some time and many conversations the data analysts and other policy walk throughs on the team came up with the idea to engage the tech community in this process. code for america helped us developed the rhythm to be used for any jurisdiction across the state that was important to create a solution to be used to assist all jurisdictions dealing with this matter. the office of cannabis is the first office to have a completely digital application process. we worked with the digital team to develop the online application. there are going to be hiccups. we are first to do it. it is one of the most rewarding parts to offer a seamless -- to offer a seamless approach. that is how they can find solutions to solve many of the community challenges. the best way to respond to prop

64 was to retroactively expunge 9,000 cannabis related records for san francisco. it feels like justice full circle for my personal experience. in the past i was furthering the war on drugs just as my directive. really coming from a place of public safety. that was the mandate and understanding. it is nice to see that pass a society we are able to look at some of our laws and say, you know what? we got it wrong. let's get this right. i had the privilege of being in the existing framework. my predecessor nicole elliott did an incredible job bringing together the individuals super-passionate about cannabis. >> the office was created in july of 2017. i came in early 2018. i have been able to see the

office's development over time which is nice. it is exciting to be in the space, stickily in thinking about her leadership. >> looking for the office it is always we might be before my time when i was working for the forboard of supervisors. i learn new things every day it is challenging and rewarding for me. >> we get the privilege to work in an office that is innovating. we get to spearhead the robust exprogram. >> i am excited she came on board to leverage experience as a prosecutor 10 years as we contemplate enforcements but approaching it without replicating the war on drugs. >> i was hired by cam laharris. i haven't seen a district

attorney that looked kind of like me. that could be a path in my life. i might not have considered it. it is important that women and certainly women of color and spaces of leadership really do their part to bring on and mentor as many young people as they can. it is superimportant to take advantage of as many opportunities as they can when they can intern because the doors are wide open. plans change and that is okay. the way this was shaped because i took a risk to try something new and explore something and show that i was capable. you are capable, right? it was about leaning in and being at the table to say my voice matters. you find your passion, the sky