>> remote hearings require everyone's atensioner and most of all your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone to enable participation. sfgov is broadcasting this live and we'll receive public comments. comments are opportunitis to speak during the public comment period and are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 24916024429. when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minute answer when you have 30 seconds remaining, you'll have a

chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i'll announce that your time is up and take the next person to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. i'der like to take role at this time. [roll call]

first on your agenda is general public comment. members of public may address the commission on items of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. 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. again, you need to press star 3. ok. seeing no request to speak from members of the public, general public comment is closed. we can move on to department matters for item 1, department announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. rich suchre. i don't have any major announcements to note at this time. i do want to note that the land use committee heard on monday the 14th the landmark designations for the 1 montgomery street, the national bank building as well as for the allegory of california. both items were before the

h.m.c.p.c. and are moving forward with their landmark nominations. that is all on my end. >> thank you. if there are no questions from members of the commission, we should move on to commission matters. item 2, president's report and announcements. >> i don't have any reports or announcements at this time. >> very good. item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 2, 2022. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes by pressing star 3. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, public comment on the minutes is closed and they are now before you, commissioners. >> motion approved. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner wright -- >> yep. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. [roll call]

so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and will place this on item 4. commission comments and questions. ok. if seeing no requests to speak from members of the commission, i will simply announce to the commission and members of the public that it looks like city hall is re-opening and so it will enable us to meet in person in city hall, starting march 7. and march 3 looks like we're going to be canceling the hearing because there are no items on there. so our first hearing in city hall looks like march 16. but after having some conversations with the officers of historic preservation commission to limit our exposure, and to go

back to a practice under the previous officers, we're going to try to consolidate your hearings into one a month. if scheduling permits so that when we're meeting in person, it will be hopefully once a month again to limit exposure. my understanding is city hall is not restricting any members of the public to prove vaccination status so anyone will be allowed into city hall to attend our hearings. fortunately this commission we usually have appropriate distancing because it's hardly a packed house. and our hearings don't go too long. so, just a heads-up. commissioners, that will place us under consideration of items proposed to be continuance at the time of issuance. there were no items proposed to be continued. but now under your regular

calendar, item 6, case number 2022-006466coa 621 waller street, certificate of appropriateness is proposed to be continued to march 16, 2022 for the request of the supervisor. we should open up public comment for the item proposed to be continued. members of the public, you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue and we'll take comment only on the matter of continuance. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, i take that back there is one request. >> excuse me, jonas. this is jason. i need to recuse myself from -- it looks like the 809 montgomery street and the 621 waller street items. >> ok. let's take up that matter of recusal, then, for 621 waller

since it has already been called. >> so move that he be recused. >> i second. >> on that motion to recuse commissioner wright. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. you are hereby recused. you can turn off your video and mute your microphone. now members of the public, we will take your comment. you have three minutes. >> caller: hi, there. we've been working with the client and also the planning department on 621 waller and i'd just like to ask why the item was continued. thank you very much. >> as mentioned, we received a request from the supervisor's office to continue the matter. ok. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the

public, public comment is closed. and proposed continuance is now before you, commissioners. >> motion to approve? >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to continue item 6 to march 16 -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and will now place us under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the public or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the con sent calendar and considered as a

separate item if this were a future hearing. members of the public, if you want this item to be heard, you need to request that it be removed from the consent calendar by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed. this consent calendar item is now before you, commissioners. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that notion approve your item on consent -- [roll call] >> so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioner wright, you can rejoin us and, commissioners, that will place us under your regular calendar. item 6 has been continued. so that will place us on item 7a and b for case numbers

2021-70060def and crv for the property at 200 rhode island street. you will first consider a landmark designation and then a resolution recommending approval. >> i need to recuse myself on both agenda items. >> i move the commissioner be recused. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners.

on that motion to recuse commission president matsuda -- [roll call] >> yes. thank you, everyone. >> you are hereby recused. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. alex westhoff, department staff. screen. everyone can see my screen, correct? >> yes, we can see it just fine. >> thank you. there are two related items before you today for the subject property of 200 rhode island street. also known as the takahashi trading company. the first is a recommendation for a community sponsored landmark designation and the second is a resolution to support a change in news from production distribution and repair to office use on the third and fourth floors. so, a brief bit of background. on july 13, 2021, the sponsor submitted the landmark designation application to the planning department, authored by architectural resources group and, on september 1, 2021 at the

regular hearing, the historic preservation commission voted unanimously to add the landmark nomination to the work program and on november 17, 2021, the historic preservation commission voted unanimously to initiate landmark designation of the property. and regarding the change of use the sponsor submitted a conditional use authorization application on september 1, 2021. so this light industrial supreme court located within a flat, triangular parcel square school district within the south of market neighborhood. the 186-foot by 314-foot by 364-foot triangular parcel is bounded by 15th street to the north, rhode island street to the east and a former railroad right-of-way to the southwest. the subject property includes the original building with three later additions, all of which are inner connected. the original 1912 five-story heavy timber frame and brick

building was designed by architect g. albert mansberg for the h. levi and company. later additions were made under various ownerships, including the steel frame and corrugated metal shed to the south of the main building, the two-story concrete warehouse and office building and three-story brick building and encasing the loading dock. in 1865, i was purchased by prominent japanese entrepreneurs and philanthropists following their displacement from japantown due to redevelopment. it served as the headquarters for the takahashi trading company who served as a importer of high-quality products from japan including porcelain, pottery, furniture, folding screens and more for sale at several retail stores located in san francisco, sausalito and new york city. the trading company has been credited with helping to

build race relations through introducing beautifully designed is japanese goods to the american public. and in 1985, the takahashis along with his sister established the henry and tomei takahashi charitable foundation and it support add variety of japanese and japanese-american culture, history and arts-related programs throughout bay area and other parts of the united states and in 2010, they received the order of the rising sun gold and silver ray award from the consulate general of japan in san francisco for the extensive contributions they made to the japanese-american xhufnlt as detailed in the landmark report, the subject supreme court significant for the following. under criterion one, it is significant for association with japanese-american post-war resettlement and san francisco's redevelopment. under criterion two, it is

significant for association with the takahashi family as prominent american-japanese business people and entrepreneurs and under criterion three as an early example of albert mansberg. a period of significance is 1912 as the year of the main portion of the building was constructed as well as 1965 to 2019 as the period which the building was under the ownership of the takahashi family. a list of characteristic and defining features can be found in the executive summary. the subject property has a strong cultural association, which is priority in the landmark designation work program. currently there are only two existing landmarks strongly associated with san francisco's japanese-american community. specifically the japanese ywca women's building. if designated, the subject property would only be the third associationed with san

francisco's japanese-american community and the first one to lie outside of japantown. i did want to read one correction into the public record. the draft ordinance on page five, line six, says the character of the bar should be preserved or held in kind. this was placed over a previous ordinance where it should say the character of the building should be preserved or replaced in kind. and it was working with the city attorney to correct this for the final ordinance. letters of support have been received from the japan town foundation, asia and pacific islanders and historic preservation, the henry and tomaei tahashi cultural foundation. one letter of opposition was received from a member of the public who opposed the conversion of the p.d.r. to office space which would be conditionally allowed if the building is landmarked. regarding the office conversion, the project

entails a change in p.d.r. to office space on the third and fourth floors, approximately 22580 square feet, pursuant to planning code section 210-3 which conditionally permits office use and landmark buildings and p.d.r.1 zoning district. this would be in addition to the approximately 12333 gross square feet which existed on site under the takahashi's ownership and this is now considered legal nonconforming office space. [please stand by]

>> this forms the basis of the structure report wecompleted in january . next slide please. you can see the existing condition and recommended treatments here. the 1912 building is in fair condition with some deterioration and treatments recommended thereand 68 and 76 additions are in good condition . slide.

>> john kaplan here to speak on behalf of the project sponsor on the office version. we're excited to be here proposing the takahashi building which will allow for the conversion of the arbor florist office to fund a restoration of the building. as a reminder several years ago the board of supervisors enacted legislation that allowed for the conversion of a limited number ofdoors to office use for a building landmark in the pdr district . this is the highest level of scrutiny of any historic building in the planning code and historic structures have been prepared which would apply greater restoration and maintenancerequirements on the building and would otherwise apply . and as a result we are proposing for the conversion of the third and fourth floors of the building to office for the landmark building rules as mister westhoff mentioned there is existing officespace in the

building which we are relocating to the fifth floor and thank you mister westhoff. if you can move onto the floor plan . the upper floors are smaller, more distant from loading docks and other components of the building that are supported industrial use so these are the more in appropriate places for office whereas it allows for the larger bottom 2 floors to be maintained consistent with thepdr zoning . theresult of this final approval will be the expenditure of $25 million on restoration of the building . 5 million and the converted office space will help finance these costs and then today we're asking the hbc to recommend approval of the landmark in an offer conversion of the third and fourth floors. and please let us knowif you have anyquestions . >> that concludes the presentation . members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressingá3 .

seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, publiccomment is closed and the item is before you . >> hello. >> commissioner foley. >> i've been watching this building for a long time and have been watching the process go through it. it reminds me of what i did when i went through the process at 1401 howard which was a church and it's very complicated to renovate churches and it's very complicated to renovate these buildings and maintain the historic significance so iam a 100 percent behind this approval . i would be recommending the approval once everyone else ca speak . >> president: commissioner charles. >> as far as i understand it we

are here to decide whether the proposed project will enhance the feasibility of preserving historic buildings and is in compliance with the secretary of interior standards.i don't think there's any question as to either of those. that's seven bebop seven 8 is simply a vote to recommend to the board of supervisors as they designate this as the landmark and based on what we've heard in prior hearings i don't think there's question of that so i moved that the staff recommendation be adopted. >> second. >> commissionernageswaran. >> i just had a couple of questions . for the conditional use authorization, it is my

understanding we are reviewing today just for the change of use ... [inaudible] it lists conditions for the conditional use authorization. item c notes change will be reviewed by the hbc and on page 8, it talks about certificate of appropriateness they may be required for otherthan repair and maintenance but could be approved by planning department staff . i wanted to know if staff could clarify or do separatereviews or are they both for the see of a ? will the hbc review the proposed project that will do the tenant improvements? i don't know if that's included in that project or not. and should this be clarified that if the conditions of the

cua are achieved. my second comment is on the hsr. in the summary ofexisting conditions and treatment recommendations , there are a hierarchy of types of work to be done.and then later on in the hsr it talks about that roof has not beenevaluated as of yet . that should be part of the process. and i would just suggest that that be put into that summary, that each building is approving envelope things be included in there along with the fagade changes. those are my two comments. couldsomeone from staff address my first question to the conditional use authorization ? >> sure. basically, the hsr is what we

include now and if something would normally trigger that a certificate of appropriateness, it would still be even if it's the hsr. and most of these things are either repairs which don't trigger a certificate for corporate entities . the things that would trigger a certificate of appropriateness are things like windows, some restoration of the fagade things that would require an acoa under the administrative circumstances of appropriateness that would still be required even if it's an hsr. to both those items they would still have an opportunity to look at those specifically. >> one other thing on page 3 of the hsr summary talked about

that it does not include recommendations for major alterations. is this because there's no major alterations being considered now or in the future with those major alterations, i think you answered my question that they would be assessedat that time . and then addressed at that time. okay. then yes. my other comments on the roof repair.it seems like that was primary to preserving the building. if there are no hierarchies of work it seems likethat should be included in their .>> commissioner nageswaran to be clear the two matters before you are the landmark designation, not recommendation forapproval of the conditional use authorization to the

planning commission . the maintenance repair would probably be covered under administrative review of any kind of expansion clearly would be coming for maintenance and repair. >> but we commentingon the hsr ? isn't that part ofwhat we're doing today or am i incorrect ? >> rich craig, deputy director. yesthat's correct . your commentsregarding the roof , we can add into if the hbc was inclined a note into your resolution that states the hsr should address conditions assessment of a roof and that department staff can work with the consultants to amend the hsr andinclude a roof treatment as part of the recommendation outlined . >> thank you . >> just one clarification.

usually these buildings have some significance to control elements. in the spirit of time they are typically built by september and other similar projects in front of us that the project sponsor had described a little bit about the interior portion . i am just curious of things i have not seen the project sponsor talked about any part that is the significance of the character or feature of the structuralelements . can you, alex for the project sponsor clarify a little bit about yes, but i worked on the macromedia project and it was a

timber structure so thatwas part of the historic significance as well . some of the stuff that we review and talked about the break and i just wanted to make sure that we have ... i'm in full confidence, i just want to hear if anyone wouldwant to please talk about it a little bit . >> there are any interior features called out in this landmarkdesignation . that is something that the sponsors could certainly consider if they didn't want to dosize . we need to ask them about funding for that. so obviously that could have a impact . it might require if it would trigger a certain appropriateness.

>> this is the project sponsor and i can comment aboutthe interior . the building was historically usedas a warehouse . as part of our structural work, we have maintained the interior for the break in timber conditionsthat you mentioned . it's actually three different types of construction, the two-story of the concrete building. we've got a wooden steel frame building and the 1912 building is timber. so we candidly left the interiors ahead of the structural work as a brick and timber warehouse and pursued the pdr seizures as well. >> thank you, so i just want to make myself clear that that part of the interior is not considered part of the significant features.

>> correct, we did not identif interior structures . >> good, thank youalex . >> commissioner right. >> to the point where we were justhaving , there is description i believe in the department summary at the 1925 building heavy timber frame is listed as acharacter defining feature . is that what commissioner so wasasking ? so it sounds like it's included as a character defining featur . >> to the extent there are alterations then it certainly would have to go before the hbc

atthat point . we don't have proposals underway correctly for that. makes sense? >> thank you jason.makes sense. it should be inthere . okay, great. >> if there is no further deliberation a motion to adopt recommendations forapproval . for both matters and the maker of the motion is including the amendment submitted by staff. >> is true. on that motioncommissioner right . [roll call vote]

>> so moved commissioners, the bill passes unanimously . commissioner matsuda, you may join our hearingagain . for item 8, case 2020 0961 4e, asset 2778 through 58 mission street. the mission cultural center fo latino arts . this is a landmark designation. mister correct, areyou with us ? >> good afternoon president matsuda. planning department staff, before you today is consideration of to recommend to the board of supervisors designation of the building that passes the cultural center for latino arts located at 2868 mission street and an individuallandmark . i'd like to introduce anna herrera, legislative a four

supervisor ronen. >> anna herrera, legislative aide to supervisor hillary ronen. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of supervisor ronen onthis item. what i want to highlight is the social history and cultural impact of this site on san francisco's latino community . the mission cultural center was founded in 1977 in the midst of a period when countries were experiencing political conflict and families fleeing immigrate to san francisco greatly country contributing to the latino identity of the mission district . the cultural center was then and is now a foundational component of the unique ideal heritage and mix of cultures

that have made the mission a place of sanctuary for residents and attraction for visitors around the world . the board that covers the mission cultural centers are titled spirit of the arts painted in 1972 by carlos manwell and betsy miller claims this space for latino arts and culture and the space inside makes it an anchor for performance, education, community gathering and more . the creation of the mission cultural center is tied to the mission district as san francisco's most concentrated latino enclave during the movement of the 1970s. in a sense the building serves as a physical manifestation of the latino experience in san francisco. at its founding the center has been a focal point for cultural and social events in the mission. among the most prominent is carnival, a celebration in five inspired by the carnival traditions of latin america and the caribbean. since the first festival the missioncultural center has

served as an anchor during the festival engaging performances to complement the festivities . likewise the dia de la muerta events weresupported by the mission cultural center . the latino cultural district alsoenhances its mission to preserve and promote latino cultural continuity , and community in the career mission neighborhood. we are grateful to the work of the san francisco latino historical society and in particular doctor carlos cordova and city preservation planning staff for doing the background research being presented toyou today . supervisor ronen enthusiasticallysupport your recommendation oflandmark designation for the mission literal center and i hope you will as well thank you . >> thank you so much. if i could share my slide , this is the mural and i'm going to move on.

there you go. some background on the legislative process. the mission cultural center for latino arts was placed on the work program in 2016. it was initiated by the historic preservationcommission in january 2021. the san francisco architectural heritage commission historians desiree and jonathan glamorous to draft the documentation which forms the basis for the designation . theprocess after today so today is the recommendation hearing which includes the draft ordinance to be introduced at the board of supervisors . the board of supervisors refers

ordinance to the land use committee which makes a recommendation to the full board of supervisors after which the full board will have 2 reads of the ordinance. that which will go to the mayor for their signature and it will become an amendment to the planning code that will be in effect. the mission cultural center for latino arts is listed on the national register for historic places and as of 2000under criterion a properties associated with the advanced significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history . criteria consideration g was applied for the national register which is for properties that areless than 50 years of age or achieving significance within the past 50 years .the predecessor to the historic preservation commission many many years ago adopted the national registered criteria forevaluating properties for local designation .they did not adopt the age requirements and article 10 has no minimum age ortime requirement and it .

and my next slide. the mission cultural center for latino arts is located may block at the west side of mission street between 24th and 25th street in the mission. the building was constructed in 1947 as a furniture store and converted to the mcc in 1977. the building is predominately a two and three-story reinforced concrete building with a partial floor. it is l-shaped in plan and has a flat roof with skylights. the primary fagade aces mission street with a larger west fagade facing a stage alley. the building is concrete and stucco. the north besides feature a large significant neural depicting latinx cultural

themes. the center is listed in the national register for criteria on a and it is significant under the areas social history, performing arts and ethnic heritage and hispanic terms. and our next slideas presented, in the attached ordinance starting on page 4 line 21 the character defining features are on the exterior , elevations formmassing structure, roof lines and ornaments identified as the reinforced concrete shell of the building . the mural on the upperfagade on mission street heading tothe spirits of the arts. 80transparent , not necessarily this particular one at present now . and on the interior , the volume and spatial relationships of the three major interior spaces in this

theater on the first floor gallery on the second floor and studio d on the third floor. the designation is in recognition of the activities contained within the building but the building itself is a container which gets designated. so the cultural relevance is not only preserved by the proposed project which is going to be occurring which will be explainedlater . but it is in short to be continued for many years to come. as stewards the city is insuring the mcc of is poised to adapt to the needs of communities it's designed to serve issues that may concern thecommission including the pending construction on site and we have folks from dpw to walk you through that . the second issue is the inclusion of the northern portion of the mural which does not face mission street but is

located above the roof of a privately owned property onthe adjacent lot. as presented the ordinance does not include this portion of the mural . the ordinance is also written to exempt basement of the storefront from an administrative certificate of appropriateness as would otherwise be the case for the delegationagreements with department staff. here staff will be using the interior standards as the building is known to be historic . we will also be using the planning code section 145.1 and the guidelines for retrofit which were adopted by the historic planning commission for use back in 1991 which all projects areevaluated . the designation itself does not need to be static. additional research is always welcome and is always done and it can be added to the administrative record at any time.

this body may adopt additional research but evenwithout that option the staff welcomes additional information that would be used in future projects . >> the designation of the mission cultural center for latino arts meet one of the preservation commissions for priorities for designation, properties associated with the underrepresented racial ethnic andsocial groups . the department recommends the historicpreservation commission approved the resolution to recommend by a marked designation of the mcc update to the board of supervisors . this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions following a brief message from hakeem taylor from public works is managing the construction. deputy director of programs of the san francisco arts

commission and property owner is here also today. answer montes and carlos cordova from the san francisco latino historical society are expected to present additional information during public comments in support of the designation . and if smpte could now connect miss taylor, i do have a presentation if i can stop sharingnow, we can move on . >> good afternoon everyone, taylor from public works and i'm the project manager and i also have with me here carol cooper houston pdx and he's the project manager from the architecture and engineering team that will be working with us onthis project . i'm just going to give a very brief background as to where we started from and paul will speak on where we are at right now. back in2000 , the public works

gave a lot of conditions assessments on mccla and what the report did was it kind of looked at the existing conditions of the building and did some findings on what the expected

... with three main goals and anoverlaying goal on all of the pieces .the first goal of the project is to do a voluntary seismic upgrade. the second goal is to do life safety and accessibility to make the building accessible. the third goal is to particularly look at the mechanical systemsof the building . and then a goal that overlays all of this is when we touch the piece of the building that needs to be touched for seismic oraccessibility or for mechanical , we would also like to improve the program of the building. so those pieces that we have started to look at were in very preliminary stages so i don't have you know, specifics but those are the goals that the

project and is joann speaking? >> unless there are any questions. >> that concludes the project presentation. weshould open up public comments. this is your opportunity to address the commission . pressá3 and you have three minutesand when you are line has been muted that is your cue to begin speaking . >> caller: this iswhat he bounty from san francisco heritage . heritage has a long connection, astrong interest in this designation . having originally foster the

application for mission cultural centers inclusion in the national register of historic places i was very delighted to hear desiree mention and moses his presentation. i'mvery happy to see moses again, it's been a long time this is a significant site , a vital site associated with the cities latinx communities and the missing districts identity. heritage strongly encourages your recommendation and thank you so much to the planning department for bringing this forward for article 10. thanks again .

... i think and herrera explainsthat what of it . what we're adding is another paper on the culture arts billboard connected to mission graphica. since the inception of the mission cultural centers and other ethnic cultural centers it was noted these were all funded at the beginning. as you know in the san francisco grand jury report of 1999 and 2000 it was noted the importance of the seismic upgrade of two facilities,

mission culturalcenter and bayview opera house . top two floors of mission culturalcenter were never upgraded, just the bottom to . in addition it was noted in the grandjury report thesystem requires , was needed , desperately needed so i want to recommend that you support thi , that there be a movable storefront but the architects that are assignedto this job work with the mist in district . and they deal with the significance of the murals that wrap around thebuilding . >> good afternoon commissioners and a special greeting to former arts commissioner so. i'm joann lee, deputy director of programs at the san francisco arts commission. on behalf of the arts commission on here to express

our support for the landmark artsdesignation for the mission cultural center for latino arts . mccla is one of four centers owned by the commission and would not be in existence if not for tremendous community advocacy and labor. in 1973 the city announced plans to spend $5 million in federal revenue sharing to develop a performing arts center which is today's dv symphony hall. communitymembers were outraged at the time that their money was being allocated for an arts center designed for only a wealthy few . activist group unity coalition for the arts one acommitment from the city to spend 2 anda half million dollars in revenue sharing over five years to purchase and develop community cultural centers . by 1977 , the arts commission had acquired for buildings and

converted them to neighborhood arts centers. the bayview opera housewhich has a landmark status, mission cultural center, african-american arts and cultural center and soma arts . the mission cultural center has been a cultural institution and the community ever sense, promoting latino culture, music, theater, dance and literary arts as well as historic graphics program. we are thrilled that in this fiscal year the capital planning committee has allocated $10 million in capital funds to partially seismic renovate the building. the landmark designation and renovation couldn't come at a better time as it enables us to ensure life safety, cultural preservation and long-term sustainability of this historically important community treasure. the arts commission asks for your support to recommend landmark designation for mccla to the board of supervisors. as it not only protects the assets but celebrates the history and establishes lasting

permanence in the city. >> thank you, last call for publiccomment. pressá3 to be added to the queue. seeing no call to speak public comment for this item is closed and it is now before you commissioners . [roll call vote] >> commissioner black, you are muted. >> apologies. i supported this when we nominated it a couple of years ago and i'm for local landmark designation, just this fits so solidly within our preservation equity. this is a property claim of underrepresented social logical and cultural groups. it is especially in the mission which is such an enclave of latinx culture. it also represents the

development of latinx arts and culture from the70s and i want to thank doctorcordova for his interesting report . this is a no-brainer . this is a building that needs to be made safe so that it can be safely occupied and look forward to it being used very soon. >> commissioner so. >> i apologize, my background has some construction so there with me. but i wanted to give a shout out for the community effort collectively through years of rigor and perseverance that we finally actually together to allocate citizen resources to this cultural resource center. and in my capacity as an arts commissioner i toured the facility and it was a very

active, vibrantcommunity . they have after school daycare, not daycare but after school programs for performing arts for kids in the mission. they have a very robust print press workshop upstairs which i also wanted to do something with it. i also want to learn how to do it. and the unfortunate part is that the building facility just like fell into disrepair. i noticed it was really, there's no mechanical system in some of the rooms and it's needed some major funding to repair the elevator wasn't working . it was kind of a very sad situation where the local artists, the latino artists that when i toured it they had a really world-class art

exhibition. of tapestries that showed specifically related to the latino heritage of how their art and culture that they can try to make the best use of what they have and i am in full support of this and i uphold everyone in the mission and also heritage and supervisors ronen's office. and did i miss someone here? just thank you and moses, i'm all for this and joann, my former awesome staff. this is long overdueprocess . and let's just make sure that we can streamline the approval process to get this much deserved 10 years ago. please help staff.

staff worked so hard, the volunteers at this cultural center. even though it was superhot in the summertime and we don't have air-conditioning or even fans, theystill were there. and it's a vibrant cultural center . i want to see more kids using it and also do more at their events in the evening. i really appreciate moses presentation because it is not just aboutarchitecture. it isn't about the architecture that's significant . this is one of the few ongoing engaging community spaces for cultural heritage in people and communities plus the architecture and the murals. this is a very awesome project that i am in full support of it and i hope that all the supervisors will be voting yes for this .

and i've talked to much so i'm done. >> commissioner right. >> i had a question for mister karen. you mentioned there were some exemptions i believe. you stated that the mural as it wrapped around the side fagade was not included as a character defining feature and i believe you also said there was him sort of exemption for review of the new storefront. could you just restate and kind of elaborate on those exemptions and the reason for those exemptions? >> i can start with the storefrontwhich is the easier of two things . but the storefront is not original. it was put in for the mission

cultural center when it was first opened. and it was done with a very awkward and unbiased proposal to do a seismic briefing. it is a large m shape that's in front of the storefronts, between the storefront and the sidewalk which would not hold the building up in the event of a seismic occurrence. it would pretty much pancake. i don't know for sure but it's very under design. and the proposal now is still in process of being developed. but the seismic work has a very specific time frame with which to spend the money.and having the process of an

administrative certificate of appropriateness would add to some of us delay and the thought was that because these administrative certificates of appropriateness are at the staff level already and the historic preservation commission has never questioned staff analysis and approvals from these things and that in the many years hbc has had the power to review in these 20 day period's, that we would use our same standards that we currently use and simplify the process by exempting it from that administrative process. going to use the same exact basis for reviewand approval , but without that 20-day-old period.

>> go ahead, i'm sorry. >> so we can assurethe work occurs within the timeframe of the monies that are available to do it. >> so it's not exempt from review but it's being exempted . it would still be reviewed and commented on as part of the planand permitting . it just will not undergo an administrative certificate of appropriateness >> that is correct . >> thank you. to your second question, the mural that does wraparound. if i am able to share my scree . thank you. let's just go to full screen mode here.

did i share properly? maybe i didn't. anyways, the mural does wraparound above the roof of the adjacentproperty . which is privately owned. that there are 2 ways of looking at this. there is planner hat. for this ordinance, the planner hat which looks to simplify and avoid any future conflicts said we don't as the city have an easement to protect that mural. if in the future there is a proposal for that building to be replaced with new construction that would obscure

that mural and it was a character defining feature of the landmark that could potentially put the city into a tricky situation and that we are protecting something from to be maintained for public view and is that a taking from the development proposal that would be maybe in 2050, we don't really know. there's nothing proposed on the books but it's just in the fact of avoiding future conflicts, not avoiding identifying history that that was not included in this ordinance . >> thank you, that provides some clarity. i was as you were talking about initially thinking that in my head, wouldn't it still be a character defining feature and it's not that it couldn't be obscured or even changed, but

that that would result in an adverse effect and so it sounds like the mission cultural center does not have plans for removal or replacement or changing of the mural. it's really just to streamline things where if the adjacent building were to be changed to something taller that would obscure the mural, then it's kind of focused more on that. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner foley. >> i try not to talk too much but iwant to talk a lot on this one . these community centers are literally the fabric of our

community. it's where kids and families come together. i spent the last 15 or 20 years helping nonprofits by and control their destiny through real estate and when you do that , they actually have incredible success and they can grow and bring the community together and have a stronger bond in the neighborhood. i am overwhelmingly thrilled about how the community and nonprofit worked so hard to get this done and how theirfunding it again a new facility that is deserving of the work they do . the second part of that i want to say is that from a planning staff perspective again i want to applaud you all for working with the project sponsor and community to figure out how you can make historical standards but get them through the process so they can renovate your building so these people can have a place tooperate and do great work . thank you to everyone that's

worked on this. i applaud it and we need to do more ofthis because this will solve a lot of social ills long-term . >> thank you commissioner foley.i don't see any other commissionerswho wish to make comments so let me make some brief comments . i still work in the community and i do work with the community center so i know what it's like to run a community center, what it's like to get one going. i particularly enjoyed meeting at most recent comments that were sent to us yesterday cause it's really reminded me of wha grassroots organizing was all about . and sometimes people who live in today's world don't remember what it was like to do graphics. traffic's did not come up from the computer back in the day. and people had to actually have two tell it to draw and to

create some really fabulous pieces of art. and i'm so glad that was captured in the report and i know that and has worked very hard to make sure that the community center is a place that will attract future generations but i also want to remind everybody that there's a lot of history about howthis came to be . and it goes way beyond building. it goes to people and it goes to a community that fought hard during a lot of ugly racism and just a lot of thinking that there's certain ethnicities or priorities. so this as commissioner black said or what our priorities are in promoting social and racial equity at the hbc and i am very much insupport of this .

so i want to see if any commissioner wants to entertai a motion . >> motion to approve. >> second. >> seeing no further deliberation there is a motion to adopt a resolution. commissioner wright. >>. [roll call vote] that motion passesunanimously 7 to 0. that concludes your hearing today . again as a reminder you have a break for the march, what does it? march 2, march 3 hearing. then we will reconvene on march 16.

>> we'll see everybody in person soon. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> i want to invite you and welcome you to the regular rescheduled police commission meeting at 5:47 on february 16th, 2022 we are beginning this meeting. my apologies for beginning the meeting late. sergeant, please, call the roll. [roll call] you have a quorum. also we have chief will jump scott from the san francisco police department and paul henderson from the department of police accountability. >> thank you, very