>> ok. good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco historic preservation commission first in-person hearing in almost two years. for wednesday, march 16, 2022. members of the public and staff may also attend remotely and we will be venturing into the new land of hybrid hearings. in-person and remote hybrid hearings require everyone's attention and most of all your patience. if you are joining us remotely and are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, sfgov tv is brau casting and streaming this hearing live and we'll receive public comment for each item on today's agenda.

comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available live in-person as well as by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 2493-0 43-5963. we'll be taking public comments from persons in city hall first and then open up the remote access line. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to, do state your name for record. for those persons calling in to submit their testimony, when we reached the item you are 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 minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. again, best practices are to call from a quiet location,

speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. if you are calling in remotely. i'd like to take role at this time. [roll call] welcome back, everyone. and it is a pleasure to see all of you in person. at this time, we'll take general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda item, 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 and i will ask that everyone silence their mobile devices. members of the public, in the hearing room, if you would like to submit your general comment, you may do so at

this time. if not, members of the -- members of -- who are calling in remotely can press star 3. i just got a note that says that they can't hear me. maybe remotely they can't hear me. oh. i can -- [beeping] i didn't realize that. i was going to turn that off. sorry about that. josie, can you hear me now? >> caller: yes, yes we can. >> ok. thank you. so, i don't know why that is reverbing. seeing no general public -- public comment is closed and we can move on to department matters. item 1, department announcements.

>> i just wanded to welcome everybody back. i don't have any official announcements and i wanted to thank you all for your patience and cooperation over the last two years in doing these meetings remotely. as you can imagine, it has been a tremendous challenge just to keep the department running in the commissions and the staff has been incredible. everybody from jonas and his team getting these commission hearings up and running and our i.t. staff, our permit center staff who have been going into the office the entire time, our reception team, moving things to electronic plan submittal and electronic plan review. it has been a huge undertaking, but i think we've done it well and it is a true testament to our team that we have at planning that it went as well as it did. so just wanted to thank you all and recognize that the staff at planning for the tremendous work they have done over the past two years. so thank you.

>> i will just pick up after director hillis. a, it was greet see all of you in person and nice to see you in person, commissioner wright and commissioner nageswaran. some updates at the board. at land use this past week, the clubhouse was heard by the land use committee and recommended to the full board thus moving forward on that landmark nomination. also at the full board, they heard 447 battery as well as the golden gate valley carnegie library and both passed with an affirmative recommendation for their landmark status. the last thing that we have on the board was from supervisor melgar who introduced a resolution to initiate landmarking on the mothers building. so, when we received the landmark -- the initiation of the landmark on them, our staff will move accordingly so you can expect to hear that in the near future. >> thank you. that concludes department

announcements. we can move on to commission matters. item 2, president's report and announcements. >> i don't have any particular announcements at this time. but i did want -- i don't know if we have seen mr. suchre in his new position in person. can you share once again -- we're very happy that you are here and going to be our liaison. but you are now the -- >> sure. i am -- [laughter] i am the deputy director of current planning and one of my lead functions will be our historic preservation division. so, i was kindly promoted by director watty who is also joining us. >> oh, i didn't see you there. sorry. [laughter] >> yeah. so, any questions in terms of historic resources, ceqa review, anything, i'm happy. to field it and coordinate accordingly. >> and director hillis, we

thank you for your leadership and just the whole planning department staff in allowing us to continue to work seamlessly throughout these two-years to get, i think, a lot of good projects going and moving forward. so, thank you very much for all you've done. ok. i have no other announcements. thank you. >> very good. we can move on to item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 16, 2022. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes. seeing no members of the public in the attendee, any members in person? ok. seeing none, public comment for the minutes is closed and they are fou before you, commissioners. >> notion approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes -- [roll call] >> so moved, commissioners.

that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and will place us on item 4. commission comments and questions. >> are there any questions or comments from the commission? >> ok. >> i do have one comment. i was presented today with a beautiful origami crane folded by commissioner johns' grandson in our quest to continue to promote cultural and historic -- cultural and historic, how shall i say it -- value, i think, in supporting all communities. commissioner johns has encouraged his grandson to take up the art of origami. i hope all the members of the public can see this beautiful crane that his grandson made and we thank him for having an interest in the art of origami. so you can tell him that his

piece has made tv. [laughter] >> fantastic. seeing no requests to speak from members of the commission, we can move on to item 5 for case number 2021-00996crv4 remote hearings. commissioners, this resolution that we're requesting that you adopt essentially is similar to the previous that we've been to enable remote hearings to continue. this one differs in that it recognizes the in-person hearings, but in case all seven commissioners are not able to attend in person, that we can still meet remotely. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. members of the public attending remotely, you need to press star 3. seeing no requests to speak from any member of the public live or remote, public comment is closed.

and it is now before you, commissioners. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the resolution to allow for remote hearings if needed -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. and will place us on consideration of items of continuation at time of issuance and currently there are no items. we can move to item 6ment case number 2020-006466coa at 621 waller street for a certificate of appropriateness --

>> i -- i believe commissioner wright needs to -- >> yes. i would like the request to be recused. >> so move. >> thank you. on the motion to recuse commissioner wright -- [roll call] so, unlike our remote hearings, we actually have to request that you leave the chambers and join us for the next item. thank you. >> ok. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. it's nice to see you all again in person. i'm michelle taylor, department staff. the item before you is a request for certificate of appropriateness for the property at 621 waller street, located in the historic district, locally designated under article 10, appendix n. 621 waller street a 3

1/2-story single family residence build circa 1900 in the queen anne style. this wood-frame building has a front-facing gable, roof, entry staircase and porch with decorative railings and is clad in a mix of wood siding, shingles and panels. 621 waller street also has a mills act historical property contract. today we want to abate case number 2020-008528enf. the project scope includes legalization of work performed without benefit of a permit, including reconstruction of front entry wood stairs, repair and reconstruction of front decorative railings, reroofing and the addition of four new sky lights. additional unpermitted work proposed for legalization includes alterations to the rear of the building, such as repair, restoration of the wood siding, removal of window openings, new window

and door openings, new fencing and a new rear platform. proposed new work will include front window repairs, repainting and the removal of two sky lights added without permits. included in your draft motion is a chronology of work done without the permits. s in 2014, the property owner of 621 waller street recorded a mills act historical property contract. the contract included a rehabilitation plan with

specific scopes of work scheduled for completion between 2014 and 2020. although much of the work was performed, the property owner has not legally completed any of the six rehabilitation scope items as required under the mills act contract. specifically, the property owner has completed or partially completed the following four scope items without permits -- waterproofing at the rear elevation, repair or replacement of wrought iron at front stairs and porch use, replacement of the rear windows and full replacement of the roof. the property owner has also partially completed one scope item that does not require permit, which is painting at the rear elevation. outstanding rehabilitation scope items for completion are repair of the front windows, repainting of the front elevation, site grading and drainage work at the front of the property and replacement of the rear balconies, which is covered under an existing separate permit. the proposed project before you today will both legalize unpermitted work performed and fulfill the commitments of the mills act contract rehabilitation plan. although the majority of work was completed and done without permit, staff found that generally this work was appropriate and consistent with the purposes of article 10 and complies with the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. where work did not meet the standards, specifically the insertion of two sky lights

vizable from the street, the project sponsor has agreed to remove these features and restore the roof appropriately. therefore, staff has determined that the scope of work, as outlined in your case report, is in conformance with the requirements of article 10 of the planninging code and the secretary of the interior standards. specifically that the proposal -- that the proposal respects the character of the -- the character defining features of the subject property, the architectural character of the building will be maintained and that replacement elements will not affect the building's overall appearance. the integrity of distinctive stylisitic features and examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize the building shall be preserved and all new materials shall match the historic material in composition, design, color, tex which youser, finish and other visual qualities and shall be based on accurate duplication of these features. staff has not received any letters of support or opposition from the public on this project.

based on the analysis and other relevant information presented today, staff recommends approval with conditions that addresses both the enforcement issues and outstanding scopes of work under the mills act historical property contract. these conditions are, one, that at the end of the 30-day appeal period of the certificate of appropriateness approval, the project sponsor shall pursue permit issuance within 30 days, that upon and to -- and two, that upon permit issuance, the project sponsor shall submit a copy of the issued job card showing the permit number and a construction schedule will w start and end dates to planning staff. three, that if construction lasts for mo more than 30 days t project sponsor shall provide monthly updates sent via e-mail by the planning department staffs with description of work completed and photos showing the progress of abasement. four, that upon completion of

abatement work, the project sponsor shall send photos of completed work to the planning department staff for review. once the planning department has determined all work is consistent with approvals and approves the work, the project sponsor shall move forward with obtaining a final sign-off on the permit and send a photo of the sign-off to the planning department staff. five, [inaudible] scope item number 2 related to the repair of the front north windows will be completed by december 31, 2022. property owner must provide photographs and receipts of completed work for preservation staff review and approval. six. mills act rehabilitation scope item number 3 related to site gradesing and drainage work at the front of the property will be completed by december 31, 2022. property owner must submit a building permit application and certificate of appropriateness application for proposed work to -- for

preservation staff review and approval. upon completion, that property owner shall move forward with the final inspection by planning enforcement staff and subsequently obtain a final sign-off of the permit and send a photo of the sign-off to planning department staff. seven, [inaudible] scope item number four related to the reconstruction of rear balconies will be completed under building permit application number 2013-12305216 by september 1, 2022. upon completion, the property owner shall move forward with obtaining a final sign-off on the permit and send a photo of this to planning staff. and eight, mills act property contract number five regarding the front north elevation will be completed by december 31, 2022. property owner must provide photographs and receipts of completed work for preservation staff review and approval.

this concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. we will now turn it over to the project sponsor team to present. thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. is this on? ok. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is alyssa scaggs. a few years ago, it felt like i was here almost every time so it seems fitting that i would be here today on the first day back that we're here in person. we are assisting the owners

with the improvements at 621 waller. 621 waller is a contributing building to the deboce park historic district and was constructed in 1900 in the queen anne style. its character-defining features include its overall form and massing consisting of wood windows, wood siding, roof form, decorative cornices and bay windows. the owners are excited about making repairs and improvements to the property, improvements at the front facade include repair of the decorative metal work and repair of the front stairs, repair of the existing windows, water proofing where planter boxs are adjacent to the building and repainting. this slide shows images of the decorative wrougt iron metal work at the porch.

the metal work was in good condition and only required maintenance. the metal work at the stair exhibited more severe deterioration. the top and both rails were in good condition and only required painting -- prep and painting. the decorative wrought iron metal work between the two rails were replaced in kind. and the picture on the bottom left shows the repair. the stairs were in poor condition and replaced in kind but were slightly altered to add an additional riser to bring the riser height into compliance. a concrete pad was installed below the front stair to provide an area for storing trash and recycling reseptember kls. the pad is not vizable from the street and does not

impact the historic appearance of the building. the roof was also replaced in kind. two sky lights, one on either side of the ridge were removed and were replaced with six sky lights. three on either side of the ridge. planning staff has reviewed the sky lights and they recommend that the two sky lights closest to the street be remove and the owner has agreed. the scope at the back of the house consisted of waterproofing, replacement of windows and doors. if you take a look at this elevation, the portion on the left is original, the portion on the right is not original. it's in addition. the windows and doors that were replaced on the original portion of the house were replaced in the same location. the windows and doors replaced on the right side, not original portion of the building, were adjusted to improve their alignment.

and this slide shows the windows and doors on the nonoriginal rear addition that faces west, replacement windows on this site are slightly larger and have proportions in keeping with the character of the building. we've been working with planning since the summer of 2000 on the improvements for the property. their review, as illustrated by what -- by michelle's presentation, has been rigorous. and they determined that the improvements in this package are appropriate for the house and meet the standards. this is just a photograph of the rear facade as it is now. thank you very much. i'm here and the owner is also here if you have any questions. >> thank you for that presentation. if there are no immediate questions from members of the commission, we should take

public comment. any members of the public wish to speak on this matter? now is your opportunity to do so. seeing no members live or remote, requesting to speak, public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you, commissioners. >> thank you. are there any members of the commission who wish to make public comment? commissioner foley? >> thank you, president matsuda. i just want to say that i really commend the planning staff of all the work they did working with project sponsor. i think they did an amazing job and i want to also thank the project sponsor. it's critical to bring the building back to compliance. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner nageswaran? >> i have a few comments and questions. i know that this is a mills act property and there are

several scopes that are outlined in the contract. and one of the scopes that i had a question on was the scope two in the mills act talks about replacement with wood windows to replace the original wood windows and i believe that they're using aluminum clad wood windows. just if someone can clarify that for me, how if -- if that's in compliance. and then the other questions related to the scopes that are mentioned in the conditions of approval, such as the site regrading and drainage, and then other parts of other scopes, i didn't hear anything about scope four. talks about interior repair leak damage. i don't know if that was related to the interior drawings. in the drawing set. or if that was, you know,

related directly to the rear balconies. and then scope six, service of the gutters and down spouts, if that was done and if those were inspected. and then i'll say a few more thing after that. >> i don't think the mic is on. >> thank you. planning department staff, michelle taylor. let's see. i'm sorry. i may have -- >> the first one was the wood windows on the rear facade. >> yeah. the replacement with aluminum clad with wood was actually approved as part of the 2017 acoa and it is consistent with the deboce triangle treatment of facades that are not vizable from the street so that was the decision there.

>> and scope three we gresz ground floor improvements and compatible walkway paving, is that directly related -- sorry, that was scope three s. that directly the site grading and drainage or are those separate items? >> scope number three. and i'm sorry. can you repeat your question? >> there was -- in the mills act, i said ground floor egress door and compatible walkway paving under the same title for site grading and drainage. is that all part of the same scope or are they different parts of that scope? >> so, scope number three in the mills act historical property contract is specific to, there is a portion of the -- when you are facing the building on your left, there is a walkway to a tradesman door and it's exterior and is

with concrete pavers and it is fronted by a two and a half-foot-tall retaining wall and water has pooled against the foundation there and there is some damage to the retaining wall, which is a historic feature to the property. so, that's specifically what scope item number three is speaking to. so, there's no interior work related to that. >> sorry. it did say foundation walls and front staircase. so, when you're talking about site grading and drainage, it also says front staircase. so did they repair some of that when they did the front staircase? or this is just on the path wayside? >> it's on the path wayside. >> got it. >> yeah. the work that was done

underneath the staircase exterior staircase that alyssa mentioned is not part of the mills act contract and was separate. >> ok. and then the scope for waterproofing the exterior [inaudible] at the south elevation, it mentioned -- you mentioned the rear balconis that are supposed to be done. and in that scope, it also talked about interior repair of leak damage s. that still outstanding? >> no. no. thank you for clarifying. all of the waterproofing was done as part of the exterior recladding that was done. the outstanding item there is the rear balconies which were pulled -- which were reviewed under a 2013 permit that is still open and has not been closed. so, as part of this approval action, we would like to ensure that that 2013 permit

be finalized so that the scope item can be complete. >> oh, ok. and then the last one was scope six, service of gutters and downspouts. did they do that? >> yeah. so, those -- >> as part of the roof work? >> both six and seven -- no, six and eight, scope item six and eight are both annual maintenance items so they are required to clean the gutters and inspect the roof annually. >> ok. so, it does concern me that the site grading, drainage away from the building is still outstanding. and there is remaining scopes in the mills act which would have been chance were existing when they initiated the mills act and defined the scope so it's a little worrisome -- >> just to respond to that, commissioner.

the owner has agreed to address the paving on the side yard. it's actually on the east side of the stair toward the front. we did go out there and we took a level to the area and the paving sheds water away from the building. away from the house. so we're not concerned about that. nevertheless, the retaining wall, it seems to pull right at the retaining wall and that is a portion that will be addressed. >> ok s. that part of the construction documents that

are furtherest? >> no. >> ok. >> i think that is a condition from planning that things be addressed by december 2022. >> ok. so, are you coming back for a second c of a? >> i'll let michelle address the conditions for that. >> thank you. yes. we had planned on us -- on another building permit and certificate of appropriateness to complete the remaining scope tell and that is the only scope item that's not specifically covered under the c.o.a. >> i'm sorry. so, the applicant would have to come back again? >> that's right. >> and why wouldn't that be included in this? >> we had asked for it to be included in this -- >> sorry, commissioner black. i just wanded to clarify that. >> no problem. >> we had asked in our conversations and review of this project. we had asked for that item to be included in this plan. and they -- there was disagreement on whether it should be included in this plan and ultimately staff decided we wanted to complete this enforcement item and

close it out and really close out the c.o.a. that is open. and so, therefore, then sought to add it as a condition that it be completed by the end of the year to ensure that it be done in a timely manner. >> commissioner nageswaran, did you have any further questions or comments? >> i mean, i'm still concerned that -- >> or maybe just we'll move to commissioner black and then maybe come back to you? >> ms. taylor, do you mind just asking -- answering a couple of questions? about -- do you know about how many mills act applications there are currently in the city? >> yeah. we have 45 active mills act contracts. >> and do most of them comply with the parameters and the

steps that they're required to comply with? >> yes. as part of the mills act program, we do require an annual -- we have the annual monitoring program in place. so each year the property owners with mills act contracts must send in a notarized affidavit stating how they have met the terms of their contract. there can be extenuating circumstances sometimes. for example, covid was an unexpected circumstance. so in those instances, they usually ask to push it out a

year and we take that into consideration. >> so, there are mechanisms for family matters or covid or whatever to accommodate changes but they're done procedurally. >> that's right. we do request that they be done within one year. >> ok. thank you. so i want to talk about the design up front and i share your concerns. i think most of the rear elevation changes are ok. the alignment of the french doors quite logical. i think it looks better. the attic windows are so out of scale, it's quite jarring to me. it may not bother most other people. given that the attic space is not habitable, that kind of lighting isn't really necessary. so, i can't imagine what prompted that. i don't think it's a major issue because it is on the rear elevation, but it is goofy. and typically attic windows are smaller than living area windows and it's pretty noticeable.

i wanted to address the mills act for a moments. i think a lot of people, if there is anybody -- members of public watching don't understand what it is but it is an unbelievable tool that helps preservation in that it allows people who have historic properties to be able to do work on them, which sometimes can be quite expensive. in exchange for reduced real estate taxes, which is actually a real benefit ands so a mills act contract is really a privilege. most cities in california don't even have the program. it's disappointing when owners who will have benefited from reduced taxes, presumably in this case from 2014 through 2020, don't hold up their end of the agreement and crux and approve things. sometimes that feels a little

bit like let's get -- let's not ask for permission. let's ask for forgiveness. it sometimes doesn't seem fair to all the people who work within the program terse and -- parameters and try very hard to meet all their obligations. other than these concerns i think some of us share, i'm prepared to approve the project. i really appreciate all the work that staff has done. i know this is the kind of thing that eats up a lot of staff time and so i appreciate that. and i appreciate that the owners, not sure who the owners are that they are complying at this stage and i -- you know, i really hope that that spirit of cooperation continues, and get it over with and move on. so i'm prepared to hear my other fellow commissioners' comments. >> commissioner so?

>> yes. i wanted to appreciate everyone's effort in putting it all together. the architecture firm and our really amazing staff and the oeber to try to make things right through this -- being eight years, right? i only have one thing that i want to emphasize because i don't want to repeat my former commissioners' comment chi agree with whole heartedly n. that mills act approval in the beginning of this project, i would assume the building was painted the original color. and i wanted -- i'm not sure if there is a way why this whole house is black. or that is actually not even part of the scope at all in -- under all the compliances mechanism. so that is my one question.

my second question is then based on what commissioner black had mentioned, about all of these state tax benefits that the property owner had -- able to get presumably. and if they have not utilized it specifically for its repair use, what are the recourse? if you might educate me. thank you. >> sure. of course. and in toons your first question, although i wasn't working for the department in 2014, i do have files from the mills act application and the house was that color. the deboce park triangle, like most historic districts -- most, not all, don't have conditions related to paint color. so it isn't something that we would typically ask for.

>> that is pretty unfortunate. but keep going. [laughter] and we just don't regulate paint color. so but in toons your second question, the mills act contract is a legal contract between a property owner and the city. under the contract, there are a couple of different ways to ensure enforcement of that contract. there is cancellation, which is one avenue and it is -- it is implemented -- or it's -- if that were to happen, it would be brought forth by the board of supervisors. we also have the option of nonrenewal, which would mean that the contract would be in

effect -- would expire and would no longer renew in perpetuity. so, the mills act contract is actually a 10-year contract that renews annually. so it then goes on forever. so, if a nonrenewal were to occur, we do have a few propertis that are in nonrenewal, then the nonrenewal would mean that the contract would then bond valid for 10 years so it would end at 10 years after the date of nonrenewal. but as part of that nonrenewal process, it does actually affect the way that the assessor calculates the benefits. so, it is a lesser amount year by year until the 10th year when there is a zero dollar benefit. so, it is a different -- a different calculation and less of a benefit than if you

were to do -- not put it in nonrenewal, if you were to just have it go in perpetuity like most contracts. so, it is a little complicated how that calculation has worked out. and i'm not expert enough to really describe beyond that. but it is something that the assessor would figure out. >> well, thank you. so, with this particular project, is this -- what is the status of the mills act? >> it is an active mills act contract. it is not a nonrenewal. >> it is not a nonrenewal. ok. and staff recommended just keep it going? >> staff -- staff can recommend nonrenewal, h.p.c. can recommend nonrenewal, however it is the board of supervisors that makes the decision about nonrenewals.

>> ok. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner foley? >> thank you. i just wanted to mention color really quickly. it was black when it got approved. i don't think we want to start regulating color. i don't think we really want to touch that. it would be incredibly difficult and i do respect commissioners. so, and her. we actually talked about color in about three years ago when we were in session. and i think that is a really dangerous thing to start talking about color. thank you. >> thank you. i do have a few comments. i guess the first one is about the lack of compliance of this project. staff was thorough in presenting to us a chronology of what happened when the mills act was first signed and recorded back in december of 2014.

that means that this particular piece of property has been receiving property tax benefits from 2015. is that correct? until 2022? that is a lot of years and a lot of money that has been saved. however, i don't see that the property owner has really come -- has really made good faith efforts to fulfill the scopes of work or the rehabilitation and maintenance plan with the mills act contract when it was signed. a lot of these scopes of work showed that there would be a completion date back in 2016 with the last one ending. -- ending in 2020. we're now in 2022. you submitted information to show us that work has been done without permit. the mills act was a hard act to create.

as commissioner black said, it's a miracle it was passed by the state legislature and we're fortunate that the city and county of san francisco has adopted this and has really tried to promote property owners or to support property owners who are capable of maintaining and sustaining a historic property. tool the historic preservation commission doesn't have enforcement powers and that is within the realm of the board of supervisors to cancel a contract or to ask or vote for nonrenewal, we are responsible for making sure that people who have the privilege of having a mills act contract follow through and i'm not seeing that here. i'm not seeing -- and i'm not in favor at this point of approving this c of a.

and the reason i'm nots in favor of approving it is because i see a specific and continued pattern of the lack of timeliness. of completing this work. i think that i would feel much more comfortable if this project came back to us with all the scopes of work included so that we could have some guarantees that everything can be done. sorry. but the mills act is a very important tool for us in preservation. and for people to take advantage of it or to ignore it is not something that we wish to support. >> commissioner nageswaran? i'm sorry, commissioner black. >> no. sorry. that was from -- >> from before. ok.

commissioner nageswaran? >> we're all learning the ropes on these things. the -- you know, i think in terms of historic preservation commission, we're also, you know, preserving things and these scopes of work were initiated for specific reasons and so includinging them is an important part of not only mills act but just preservation in general and just like, you know, commissioners black and so and, you know, matsuda have spoken about the different scopes, you know, i just feel strongly that it's about preservation at the end of the day and we need to have all of these scopes which were supposed to be done by 2020. they need to be included in this application. thank you. >> commissioner so? >> so i'm not going to talk

about color but i really have issues with -- this is going to be a very -- if we approve this today, it is going to set a really different precedence that we would like the found see. we do need to recognize, having the mills act, it was almost like a gift to the city and encouraging our community to really do the right thing. and i really agree with president matsuda that, in this application, there is some sign to me that there are also something that is missing and there is a lot of negotiation from the project sponsor with the staff about what's included in here and not and it is going to come back here in december for another c of a and that doesn't sound very, how shall i say, when somebody has already done something wrong

and they should spend -- get their act together and actually make everything right in one setting instead of trying to negotiate and delay these applications and it's like a serial reapplication of c of a. so, i don't feel good about today's presentation, not because of the con tents and the material and the effort and i really appreciate michelle taylor's spending all this time to help this sponsor, to get to this. i only wish that wes have a better recourse on mills act with someone actually chose to not follow it and benefit the money from the public. and now it is costing us more time to try to review this. so, yeah. that is my comment. and someone should motion to -- >> we have another commissioner who would like to make comment. commissioner johns.

>> so, president matsuda, what -- what were you thinking of in terms of a continuance? let's say it would take these folks 90 days or 120 days to get everything cleaned up and then come back to us. >> i think, yeah. i think they need to come back with everything, with all the skoems included. >> i'd like to know, then, i don't know to whom to address this. >> maybe we should address that to staff. >> but how long would it take to get everything cleaned up and organized so we can have a complete package that includes everything and we can then function on that? how many days? >> so i just want to be clear that -- >> they haven't addressed you. so -- >> ok. sorry. >> i think that is a good question. i'd like to propose 90 days. >> all right, then.

i move that we continue this matter for 90 days, during which time all the details should be worked out, if there are any conditions they should be worked out. and then let's see what happens. does that satisfy everyone's concern? >> commissioner black? >> i wonder if we could just hear from the project proponent if think they there is any major problem with that. i don't want to find more lack of compliance because we failed to understand something. but knowing that, we would like to see it done quickly. >> yeah. i think we all do and i think part of the reason that we moved forward with this was just the site drainage not in this is because we've been working on this since 2020, trying to get a permit for this. yes, things were done without a permit and the owner is trying to rectify that.

but in terms of money that has been spent, a lot of money has already been spent in waterproofing and repairing and doing a lot of work that is in the mills act. the only thing that is not in the permit is the site drainage and as far as the site drainage is concerned, it reads "site gradinging and drainage work from the north elevation to the property -- to the front property line to direct water away from the foundation walls and front staircase." >> right. i understand that. could you answer commissioner johns' question if this c of a were to be continued for 90 days. would you be able to come back? >> well, we probably would need to gate civil on board and if the owner's willing, i think we could probably do that. we need to make sure that we retain someone that can help us with that.

>> that a yes? >> that's unclear. aren't you supposed to dos that anyway? >> i'm sorry? >> you're supposed to have an engineer lined up already if you're already convinced of staff that you are able to come in with another c of a in december. >> well, yes. so that would give us more time if we were to, you know, wait until december. but, yes, we can -- we can retain someone and do that work. >> all right, then. that settles that issue. if 290 days is sufficient. if there is a second to my motion, we can vote on it. >> just to make a note about this real quick. since the scope of work was not identified in the original c of a, it will require new public notice.

so we can still continue the item today and then staff will prepare the new public notice for whatever hearing date we move the item to. >> just so all the ts are crossed and the is are dotted and not the other way around. >> and it contains the full scope. i'm sorry. i have to repeat this again. there is history here that does not show me that you are acting in good faith. or there is some big delay from 2015 to 2022, and you just started in 2020. there is something that does not sit right. that you're telling me that i have faith that you're going to do this. so we need to make sure that the entire scope. anything that is left needs to be included in the next c of a. >> commissioners, if i may. if the deputy director is correct and it would require a new c of a, i suggest that we continue this matter

indefinitely and it will be renoticed anyway and then reagendaized it. >> that's a good idea. that it be continued indefinitely. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. did you have comment? very good then, commissioners. if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter indefinitely and to see this at a future time when the complete scope of work is included on that motion. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. 6-0. >> thank you. commissioner wright, you may rejoin us now for item 7, case number 2019-04146env at 520 john muir drive. this is for your review in comment and i believe staff is actually joining us

remotely. mr. greving? oh. >> sorry. >> ok. sorry. >> someone's going to do the slides? >> yes. they're up. >> where is my stuff? here it is. >> sfgov, if we could go to the slides, please? >> thank you. >> good afternoon, h.p.c. commissioners. filling in for justin greving. the item before you is an

opportunity to receive public comment and to provide comments on the draft environmental impact report for the lake merced west project. pursuant to local procedures for implementing ceqa, this draft e.i.r. is brought to you as a significant impact on historic resources. commission members were sent electronic coffees of the draft e.i.r. which included as appendix d three historic background reports for this project. the public review period for the draft e.i.r. began on february 23 and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on april 11, 2022. the department is requesting your comments on the adequacy of the e.i.r. regarding historical resources. specifically the identification of historical resources, the analysis of project impacts on historical resources, the mitigation measures and the range of preservation alternatives considered. i'd like to remind the commission that preservation alternatives were brought to the h.p.c. on july 7, 2021 for your review abcomments. the h.p.c. found the alternatives to be adequate but provided some comments that have been incorporated into the alternatives evaluated in the draft e.i.r.

any comments you may wish to submit to the planninging department on the draft e.i.r. will be addressed in the response to comments section of the e.i.r. the h.p.c. comments will be provided to the planning commission prior to the draft hearing on march 3. i'm joined online by justin greving, the preservation planner and jockey soon with the san francisco recs and park department. next slide, please. ok. now a quick look at the project site. next, please. the project site is located at 520 john muir drive in the southwest corner of san francisco. next slide, please. the 11-acre site is located on the south side of lake merced between the lakeshore and john muir drive and is the former site of the pacific rod and gun club. this map calls out the significant landscape features and buildings in orange, including four skeet fields and four buildings which i will describe in more

detail later. next, please. in a view of the site from the ground facing east. to the left of the photo, you can see one of the skeet fields while to the right is the shell house. next, please. now i'm goinging to touch briefly on the history of the site and its significance. next, please. the subject property is a site of the pacific rod and gun club that operated along lake merced from 1934 up until 2015. the pacific rod and gun club site is significant under criterion one for its association with the increased popularity of sport hunting and skeet shooting that occurred within the context of the early 20th century wildlife conservation movement. the period of significance is from 1934 to 1941 and reflects the club's initial period of expansion before the advent of world war ii. next, please.

the character defining features of the site include landscape features, buildings and structures that relate to its significance as an outdoor recreational skeet shooting facility. they include the linear arrangement of skeet fields four through seven facing the lake, the shoreline as a natural boundary and the location of buildings and structures on the periphery of the site. next, please. the character defining features of the individual skeet fields include its level terrace, a semicircular path system of each field with a high and low house located at opposite ends of each field and the security fences situated between the skeet fields shown on the bottom right image. next. the character defining features also include the four buildings on the site that were constructed during the period of significance. the clubhouse, the caretaker's house, the rifle range building and the shell house. based on these findings, the

subject property is a historical resource for the purposes of ceqa. next? and now to talk a little bit about the proposed project. next? the project objectives for the site include the creation of a new recreational facility that enhances its unique waterfront setting to develop the site to maximize views of the lake and to create a recreational facility that has a flexible and wide range of uses. next. the proposed project would include the demolition of all existing structures on site and the construction of a new community center, restaurant, playground and two sport courts in the center of the site. at the east end of the site would be a new boat house building with a dock and soft landing area and a new sfpuc arborist office and support building. at the west end of the site would be a new restroom building along with ropes

courts and skate park. the footprint of skate field four would be incorporated into a picnic area. next. the draft e.i.r.s concluded that the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse change on the significance of the historical resource. this was determined to be a project level significant and unavoidable impact due to the fact that the project would demolish all buildings and structures along with most landscape features. four mitigation measures were identified for the significant and unavoidable impacts and include documentation of the historic resource, video documentation, and are interpreted and preparation of oral history. while these mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project's impact on the historical resource, this project would remain significant and unavoidable. next? to address the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project on the

historical resource, the draft e.i.r. analyzed three alternatives to the proposed project. the full pressurer is vacation and partial preservation alternative. next? the h.p.c.s provided feedback on draft preservation alternatives back in july 2021. this feedback thosed some changes in the partial preservation alternative explored in the e.i.r. in order to create a better cohesion between the retained buildings and skeet fields. skeet field 7 was retained rather than skeet field 5. next slide, please. here's an overall breakdown of the preservation alternatives. a no project alternative that would not construct a proposed promise and leave the existing buildings and site in its concurrent condition. while this would reduce impacts to historic resource, it would not achieve any project objectives. a full preservation alternative would retain three of the four contributing buildings and the four total skeet fields

while allowing for the construction of three new structures on the site. instead of building a new restaurant, the existing rifle range building would be rehabilitated for use a as a restaurant and the caretaker's house would be used for on-site storage and the clubhouse would be adapted for reuse as a community building and public restroom. due to the retention of all four skeets fields and three of the four buildings, the impact under this alternative would be less than the project and would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. the partial preservation alternative would retain two of the four skeet fields and two of the four contributing buildings and allow for the construction of four new structures on the site. including a new restaurant building in a different location from the proposed promise, which allows for the retention of skeets field seven under this alternative to maintain the relationship between the skeet field and retained clubhouse and caretaker's house. because two of the four skeet

builds and two of the four contributing structures would be retained, this alternative has less of about impacts than the proposed project. however, due to the new construction combined with the loss of contributing features, the impact would still be significant and unavoidable. the same four mitigation measures to address impacts to the historic resources would apply. next slide, please. the following slide highlights the community outreach that the environmental division undertook as part of the ceqa process. on june 9, an n.o.p. was mailed out to stakeholders and with publication of the draft e.i.r.s, the same group received a notice of availability of the draft document. the departments also held a public scoping meeting on june 23, 2021. next slide, please. before i conclude, i would like to remind everyone that there will be a public hearing before the planning commission on the draft e.i.r. on the 31st of march. in

order to be responded to, comments on the dra. e.i.r. must be submitted orally at the planning commission or submitted in writing to me, julie moore, the e.i.r. coordinator. comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on april 11, 2022. this means that comments made by members of the public during this hearing today will not be responded to in the response to comments document. after the planning commission hearing and the close of the comment period, the planning. department will publish a response to comments document which which is l contain our responses to all relevant response to the draft e.i.r. this is an opportunity for the h.p.c. to comment on the adequacy of the e.i.r. including the description and historical sa us the of the site t proposed mitigation measures in the range of alternatives presented. staff are available to answer

questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. seeing that there are no members of the public in the hearing room ors in our remote access webex platform, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you, commissioners. >> great. commissioner johns? >> well, i think that this -- now is the second time it's come before us and our comments for the first time are part of it and i find that the -- every part of this is adequate. >> commissioner black? >> i concur. and i -- i do want to say, at least at this stage, because the planning commission asked us to give preference on which alternatives we think are appropriate. i don't see the need for -- oh, first of all, i want to say -- i want to leave with the design comments. i really like the design direction.

the c-ranch approach using the work of turnbull and halprin, i think that is just right for this sie. and i think that even the personal alternative can accommodate that even though there would be some existing structures incorporated. that could be done with paint color and landscaping. i don't think that is incompatible with the design direction of the project. so i don't see the need of the no project alternative. this is a use that is diminished in popularity. no one was using it, which is why it closed. and leaving it just basically to further deteriorate has, in my opinion, no purpose. i think the full preservation alternative has the same

impact. it doesn't do anything for the site. so i would recommend either the partial preservation alternative or the project and i would like the hear my fellow commissioner's comments between the two. >> thank you. commissioner nageswaran? >> so i actually like the full preservation alternative because it's sorlts of a medium between the partial and the project. itself. looking at the compared -- comparison table, it seemed to include almost everything that the other -- that the partial and the project itself, the proposed project itself except for, i believe, picnic tables and one other element, i can't quite remember at the moment. and retains some of the features of the original -- of the original complex.

which i find is a completely unique in this area. you know? it's sort of a strange animal on its own there. but not to say that, you know, the proposed project itself is, you know, contributing a lot to the community. but i think -- i think preserving something that is kind of unique to our area is also of interest. and it kind of came to mind more when i was looking at the proposed project itself which seemed to just wipe everything clean. i almost thought, wow, it's a little bit missing. but i think it does gain a lot. like commissioner black said in the style of all the people that did c-ranch. so, that does give it some merit.

my preference is what was already stated in the packet as a superior alternative is the full preservation alternative. and also just one question about the phasing is -- it's slated to start in 2023. the first phase, which is three months long. and then there is an 18-month period where concessionaires are identified. has me a little worried about whether a concessionnaire will be identified but that is sort of an outside question. but just curious. >> was there a question about the facinging? >> yeah. you had an 18-month period where you're waiting between phases one and then two and three.

to identify a concessionnaire, i believe for the restaurant. are you confident that you'll find the concessionnaire? >> i'm going to pass this over to my park and rec colleague. >> good afternoon, commissioners. yes. we would be looking far concessionnaire to operate all the paid recreational areas on the site. so, the boat house and the ropes course and the restaurant. >> and you're confident that you are going to find people? i guess you're waiting to find one and then build the rest of the promise. got it. ok. >> after the completion of the e.i.r., we'll issue a request for proposal. >> i would hate to have it demolished and then find out that you don't have a concessionnaire. that would be my worst night mare. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner wright?

>> yes. thank you. one question that i have about the full preservation alternative is if or why retention of the shell house is not considered. since it's a contributing feature and really the only contributing building and not included in that. >> i believe the thought was that there'ss so few of the project features that are retabled in the preservation alternative that they could at least get a sports court in if they removed the shell house and that -- keeping three out of the four contributing buildings would be sufficient to retain -- convey the sites -- historical significance. >> do you know if there was something about that building that did not lend itself or was it just that the other ones were grouped together and that was hanging out by

itself? >> i think as part of the comments at h.p.c. also was the trying to retain the core in that partial preservation alternative having that -- sorry. you are talking about the full. >> yeah. the full preservation alternative. the shell house was the only one not kept. >> right. i think it was just determined that that would be sufficient. justin, if you are online, do you have knolls add? -- do you have anything else to add? >> this is justin greving, planning department staff. i'm not sure if you can hear me. >> we can. >> ok. yeah. i think part of the decision is not retaining the shell house was that we wanded to make sure that we could incorporate most of the programming of the proposed project and the full preservation alternative turned location of the shell house and away from the

central core of the buildings made it difficult to incorporate those other site features that we wanted to under this alternative. >> thank you. and i do have some more comments and questions. one other thing that i noticed was that it seems pretty clear that the partial preservation alternative was trying to balance the approach that it could provide the restaurant or restaurant of that size and the full preservation

alternative does provide a restaurant in a historic building. i think there is opportunity, really, in both the full and partial alternatives, full and partial preservation alternatives to maybe add on to the rifle range building, which is the one that's the proposed restaurant and the full preservation alternative. with a compatible but differentiated addition which could provide more space that would be needed to operate a restaurant while retaining that historic building in either of those alternatives. i did not see that there were any view sheds identified. from the cluster of buildings at the clubhouse or the caretaker's house so i don't think that would, you know, an addition of that sort and location, that would -- or expansion of the restaurant would impact any view sheds. one other takeaway from me was that the remediation plan

that was previously taken -- that was previously done was really tried to make sure that the site retained its integrity and its historic status. i think both the partial preservation alternative and the proposed project is clear has significant impacts and less with the partial preservation alternative. neither the proposed project, nor the partial preservation alternative allows the site to retain enough integrity to convey its significance or retain its historic status. so i would be in favor of the

full preservation alternative so that this can tell its story on its own. maybe with the help of some interpretive displays and good intendseration. but, you know, this is a pretty unique site. >> thank you. commissioner so? >> thank you. in general, when i look at projects -- and i've seen this project on our virtual meeting and thank you for coming back. when i look at it, i'm looking at the neighborhood and the community and what purpose would it serve in the future when we spend the money and effort to create something for the community and continue for them to gather together. and i am pro adaptive reuse. so i'm looking at all the

elements and quality of all these proposal alternatives. to hold dear to my hardest that when you embrace a full community, that is everyone across all ages. that is including children that they can have a place to go play. so when you see proposed options here, i see that the partial preservation alternative has retained a pretty good size of the playground where also you had adaptively reused some of the skeet and also the caretaker's house and the clubhouse. we acknowledge that you will be creating some type of story telling on the site to let people know what it used to be and how many

significant character contributing significant features are used to be here. but then also allowed them to experience and the next generation to experience this park and fully utilizing it. so, i am for -- i'm favor for the partial preservation alternative and i actually don't mind to do the proposed site plan, but given i hear my fellow commissioner's concern, it seems to be i'm going to recommend the planning commission to move forward with the partial preservation alternative for maintaining also the future use of the park and safety and integrity for the next 100 years. we would like the see every community are being included in the use of this area. and when you bring parents and kids into a new recreation area, it brings so much liveliness to it.

so i'm waivering between the different elements and trying to provide a reasonable recommendation from my perspective. >> commissioner foley? >> i like the proposed site plan. i think they've done a lot of great work and the reason i like it also is it's economically viable. when you start talking about, you know, adding space to a building and trying to build a restaurant into it, [inaudible] is impossible. hiring people is impossible. if we activate the site, and by the way i operate about 40,000 square feet of food and beverage unsuccessfully. but if you actually activate this site the way they laid it out, you have a restaurant and community room. you're actually going to have a restaurant to be successful. and you'll have a site that is going to be operable in the future. i went out there the other day. i walked it. it can be amazing space. but it's only going to be an amazing space if we make it

economically viable and i think i grew up shooting the gun. my father was in the military. i don't have to go shoot the gun out there. and i think this is my big next pitch. i think we can do a lot of this explanation of interimive displays around q.r. codes. i want to get back to q.r. codes, ok? that is my focus. that is how we tell the whole history of the space. there is a lot of history here. but preserving this building is not going preserve the history, it's just going to national convention sients economically viable and we put a con ?etion there and they fail and it will be terrible. i recommend to approve the site plan. thank you. >> commissioner black? >> i find all the comments from my fellow commissioners to be really interesting. i have to say that coming back to where i started, i find commissioner so and foley's comments to be really compelling.

the reason that the full preservation alternative would work is truly economic. and i don't know enough about the business of attracting concessionnaires and making it viable. i don't know whether weddings are planned or whatever it is are planned at these community facilities and the restaurant. but it does need to be successful. having said that, looking at the partial preservation alternative, i don't see the need to preserve all four of the skeet fields. the partial preserves one of them in tact. it stays as it is. and turns the other one into a picnic ground which is a good use. something that commissioner so mentioned, the mother among us. and i see the rifle building. i like very much chisinger wright's comments about the rifle building. i do see that beinging able

to be incorporated somehow into a community building and/or restaurant or just a restaurant venue and then the community building goes back with the caretakers. so those are the two alternatives that i think are most likely to result in success. i get it. that we're going to lose a couple of buildings and all of them under one alternative and i find that really sad. i'm very sad that that existing sign, the pacific gun club sign is gone. that is fantastic. but i don't think -- i think the need for providing a variety of recreation use at this site is really important. and there are plans in this area for more high density housing. we need make sure that we

have lots of recreational opportunitieses so i'm more for the partial and project alternative. >> i think we have a divided commission here. [laughter] some people who are in full support of the full preservation and partial and maybe some want to go with the project. i'm actually leaning more toward a full preservation alternative but i wanted to make some other comments about e.i.r.s in general. this site in particular has been closed off to the public. unless you had a gun or did those kinds of activities, you would never, ever be in any way affiliated or introduced to this particular area. i think in situations like this, when the majority of the people have not had the privilege of going on to proposed grounds where it is

going to change, we should just require a site visit so we can get a better look and feel about what is actually happening. there were comments in the public scoping about being more inclusive and think about including the colonial store -- cultural stories and i am a strong advocate of that and i think that goes with our priority of making racial and social equity a priority at the commission. with the project alternatives, the project objectives, i see nothing about history in here. we have a very important piece of land where there will be a lot of history. not only history from 1934, but history pre-1934 that is never considered as part of the objectives. and that should always be a part of any project objective

when we're talking about something historic and something as significant as this. and it has been documented that this site is very historic and has retained its cultural landscape. so i don't remember what we did before when we were in person and had a unanimous consensus about which way to go. can you re-remind me, jonas? >> this is actually not an action item for you. so, this is purely for your ability to review and comment and so your comments will be transmitted as individual commissioners and there was never an adoption of a resolution that was forwarded to the planning commission and staff. it's simply for your ability to review and comments. all of your comments will be transmitted and made a part of the formal record. >> yeah. i think that is great. commissioner nageswaran?

>> i just wanted to reflect all the different comments on the partial preservation alternative, if they retain that rifle building, that would form at least somewhat of a cluster there of the original set of buildings more than what's there now. i really appreciated commissioner so's and commissioner foley's comments. and commissioner black and commissioner -- or president matsuda in that maybe in the proposed project and in the partial preservation alternative, that there be interpreted information on the ramaytush ohlone, you know, and those histories of lake merced that are kind of lost to us that we need to kind of revisit.

those are super important and gun club can come second to that, or third. so, yeah, that would be a comment that we could, yuan, be more inclusive in that partial preservation alternative if we're taking most of the site away. of the historical buildings that add that in there. it should be part of all of it. but that would definitely help the partial preservation alternative and also the proposed project itself. thank you. >> if there are no more further comments from the commission, i think we are ready to conclude. >> indeed. if there is nothing further we should move on to the next item. could we take five-minute sfwlaik we don't need to do that anymore. let's go. >> we have one remaining item. we can probably last through it. [laughter] ok. very good.

commissioners, the last item on today's first in-person hearing is number 8, case number 2016-013156srv for the city-wide cultural resources survey update. this also is not an action item but rather and informational presentation. >> ok. laugh good afternoon, commissioners. i'm planning staff member maggie smith and i'm very excited to see you in person today.

and i'm excited to also give you a few updates on the san francisco city-wide cultural resources survey, s.f. survey for short. so here's our presentation agenda. we'll provide a brief overview, then talk about progress on xhinlt gaugement, the city-wide historic context statement and field survey and inventory. we'll then wrap up with our next steps. as a reminder to all, s.f. survey is a multiyear effort to identify and document places that are culturally historically and architecturally important to san francisco's diverse communities. by bringing people together, through community engagement to honor, share and celebrate their histories, s.f. survey aims to help sustain san francisco's cultures. the transmission of knowledge

across generations brings continuity to the way of life and culture of our communities. a deeper understanding of our history and the contributions of those who came before us enhances our collective sense of belonging and agency in our communities. the results of s.f. us iser vai will raise awareness of cultural resources and will help guide the planning department's decisions on new development, area plans and building permit applications. cultural resources may also qualify for protections and incentive programs. benefits. the staff will focus on turning programs with the planning department and status code of b, unknown age eligible, as indicated in the san francisco property information map to, either, a, historic resource presence or, c, no historic resource present. basically making the unknown known. the information help guide our decisions on future landmark designations and other heritage-based work.

we have a small team of staff supported by a great network of consultants, the survey advisers group, the h.p.c. and the public. our team is heavily involved in this s.f. survey and i'm filling in for marcel until she is out on leave until may. several of our staff has joined us today. s.f. survey will occur throughout the entire city with a focus on areas that we have not previously surveyed architecturally for the field survey. this is based on priorities for racial and social equities, existing and planned historic contexts and staffing capacity. the pilot in the proper amazon has helped us further develop our survey process while making sure we have time to finalize our community engagement framework. s.f. survey has five interrelated components.

community engagement, the city-wide historic context statement, field survey, findings and adoption and the culminating cultural resources inventory. several of these components have been under way since 2020 and we are in the middle of our pilot survey. we will embark upon our phase one of feel work over the summer. as a highlight, we'll jump briefly into our community engagement. s.f. survey will rely heavily on input from community members, keeping with planning's previous cultural heritage-based work, the intangible meth dog, capacity building and implementing a multimedia approach to outreach, critical consultation with community will be key for developing inclusive findings. our community engagement framework currently under development aligns with the historic preservation

commission's racial and social equity resolution. this is graphic shows our various stages, strategies, and the related stages of the public participation spectrum. in fact, consult, engage, collaborate and empower. our community engagement framework developed along our engagement consultant aims to expand underrepresented community including american indian, black and other communities of color. to work, it aims to work with groups and organizations, such as legacy businesses and faith-based organizations, to co-create more inclusive processes. to develop dynamic partnerships and collaboration. and ultimately to create living tools. we have shared our first draft of the framework with the survey advisors group.

we will notice the document and look forward to sharing it in depth at an upcoming h.p.c. hearing. on to our historic context statement. there's been no changes. and we will share several documents. up soon, will be resident parks historic context statement and architect biography's evaluatesive framework which has been shared with the advisory group for review as well. later in the year, we'll bring these documents to h.p.c.

and our pilot survey. how is that going? it's going great. we are learning a lot. and as i mention, we are in the middle of it in the proper amazon neighborhood. we mail add postdaords all residents, owners and interested organizations in the [inaudible] amazon. you should all have a copy of the postcard as a souvenir for yourself. we also met with supervisor safai for a briefing on the survey -- s.f. survey project and on the pilot. we updated our web page as well so please check that out.

and here is a little snapshot into our survey [inaudible] which include our lan yard with s.f. survey badge, business card, extra postcards, language translation cards, survey devices and a few other items. i brought one here with me today in case you want to check it out. we completed internal training and also provided a draft facilitator's guide for talking to community members while in the field. which is one of our community engagement strategies. also before going into the field, we prepopulated our survey app with existing information including developer tract research by one of our interns. this is a very helpful reference while we were in the field. the team got to test out the

survey technology and get boots on the ground experience to help inform our process for the survey going forward. we captured 500 out of 3,000 properties in photographs and began our research and evaluation process in the office. so, what were some of our lessons learned during this pilot thus far? we surveyed and discovered some thinking issues. we also experimented with what information to collect in the field versus in the office. we determined that we will pretty much focus on capturing photographs in the field with a few exceptions such as capturing material cladding and windows cladding material so it's easier to see in the field than it is in the photograph as you're zooming in. and we proactively engage with neighbors and began collecting community input. this photograph here is something that a member of the public came out and

shared with us. so, as i mentioned, through our pilot lessons learned, we determined to actually move away from our [inaudible] collector. but we will be staying within the family by using work flows, a plug-in that syncs directly with our [inaudible]. san francisco has great connectivity so we don't anticipate issues. we have received great support from the getty conservation institute and theralon geographics. they are helping us develop our in-feel survey work flows over the next few weeks. this all means that we will still be able to use arounds as our web-based cultural resources indian veteran toyer. -- inventory. and next steps, what is up next for the s.f. survey team?

we'll continue our pilot survey using our work flows app. we will engage with community and bring our community engagement framework to you all as well as various component of the historic context statement. we will continue working with the survey adviser's group and meeting with stakeholders and anticipate starting phase one over the summer and continuing to make progress on the city-wide historic context statement. so, up next for you all in the upcoming months, we have quite a number of items that

we're excited to share. first of all, our community engagement framework and then a variety of components to our city-wide historic context statement, including biography framework, residents park historic context statement and the variety of architectural themed documents include early settlement era styles, american and californian styles and spirk and mediterranean revival style. so that is it for me. thank you all very much and happy to take any questions. >> thank you. that was a great presentation. and who are all of our new guests? >> so, commissioners, i just want to introduce you to all of the planning staff that have been hired in the last two years. none of these staff have had the opportunity to visit city hall. nor visit our hearing chambers and so they came to observe the historic preservation commission proceedings. >> they are not all here for public comment. [laughter] they are just going to get a little bit of training to feel comfortable to be in the commission change betters after this hearing ends. >> you can feel free to make public comment -- >> no. no. no. they don't need make public comment. [laughter] >> welcome. commissioner foley? >> you know, i just like to say, you know, to all the staff that are here that have not been here before, welcome. and i'm just continually impressed by the department

and the people they bring in and during covid how you all made it through and continue to build great stuff and do great things. thank you very much, everybody. >> commissioner so? >> welcome [inaudible]. similarly, i really appreciate you spending the time to walk over here and enjoy the new building and happy to see all these bright brains to help us to get through our commission hearings in a very efficient way and manner and i also really like the give a shout-out to the survey team really amazing presenting. i have the benefit of joining the advisory group, which is really nice. and i got to say they have so much more prepared in their sleeves as they don'ts work on it. the group is amazing and even down to it really love the choice of graphics.

i makes it so inclusive. i believe that every graphics you chose to put in here speaks its own story and the cultural references of san francisco. age this postcard is really cool. i'm a design person and i really love this. thank you. it just makes it so good looking. you know? the planning department. thank you. really happy to see everyone. i was not expecting to see many more new faces. i see finally got to meet my two fellow commissioners in person. this is going to be a really great start of a new era. so welcome. >> thank you. commissioner nageswaran? >> so as a preservation architect, i've done a lot of wind chill surveys on foot or in a car where i'm recording all kinds of parameters as i go along and i'm just curious what -- how many parameters are you recording? how much time do you have at

each, you know, building that you're working on and then also in your city-wide survey, are we still pursuing doing african american resources and american indian resources or oral history or diving deeper into those? >> sure. i can start and address the comment and then i'll ask planner smith to elaborate a little bit more. but the larger historic context statement frameworks are moving forward. so, we're actively working on the african american historic context statement. the latino historic context statement and khie nez-american historic context statement. i think particularly with the ethnic context statements, we're very mindful of outreach and engagement so we're, you know, since outreach and engagement is a driving force in the survey

as a whole, we want to make sure that the foundation documents for the survey itself are brought out into the community, provideedd input as appropriately with relevant community members and scholars and people that know their history the best, quite honestly. although a couple of these documents have been under way for many, many, many years at this point, i will just put that forward, we're fine waiting knowing that we want to make sure that we want it done right. i think relative to the fields, maggie can address how we'ves been approaching that part. >> on that note, our community engagement framework which will bring to you in about a month and do another thing for, we're reaching out to a variety of organizations and making sure that we're as inclusive as possible through this is engagement process and really

relying on our context statements to be more of living documents and not just something that's printed p.d.f. done where it's something that is constantly change and being updated. so regarding what we're collecting in the field and timing per property, we're trying to keep it short and simple, taking high-quality photographs, collecting information that is had to discern from a photograph. gathering that information while in the field and going back into the office and filling out the rest of the description. and then conducting research and seeing which historic context statements align with the property and doing the significant evaluations and then ultimately providing a preliminary california historic status code which will be sent off to the office of historic preservation. >> for example, when you were doing the pilots in one day, how many properties were you able to assess?

or collect information on? >> this range, because of our syncing issues, but we were able over the course of about three weeks we were able to collect photographs and information on 500 properties. when we first started, we tried to collect as much as possible in the field and realized it was taking about 10 minutes per property. which is a lot when you consider there are 127,000 propertis that we need to collect information on across the city. so we decided to narrow that down and collect what is absolutely needed to collect in the field that helped cut down the amount of time and with our new app moving forward, work flows, looking forward to seeing our daily time on that and how much staff time we're out in the field versus in the office. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner black? >> i just have one question.

when you modify the photograph, are you doing streetscape photographs to document what you're looking at or sort of selectively choosing properties to photograph? >> we're photographing every single property. >> ok. >> and so that is, at the very least a straight-on photograph and for corner properties an oblique view. for propertis that have really great detail, we have a spot for detail photographs so we can take closer photos but at the very least one photograph per property and then for historic properties we take streetscape views. >> thank you. i'm reminded of one of the goals that sort of foundation for to all of this. the commission about three or four year ago really stressed with the board of supervisor and that is that by doing this city-wide survey, we're

actually helping with developers select properties. so by identifying resources, you want to tear it down, stay away from that. because it's going to be a much harder battle. but if there is a property that is not considered a resource and you want to demolish it for higher density housing, you don't haves to go through lots and lots of convoluted steps. the goal here was to speed things up and preserve our best resources and promote housing where it should be. where it doesn't have such an impact on historic resources. and the supervisors were highly supportive of that and then we ran into covid, among other things, that really slowed this down. but i want to say thank you to the committee, but also really thank you to the team. this is hard work. i've done a survey before and that is really hard. so i really appreciate it and i welcome all the new

thinkers and planners who can help with this. it's just a really important project. so welcome and thank you. >> thank you, commissioner johns? >> thank you. this is a question for maggie smith. have you contacted, and your comments about photographs, have you contacted muni? >> for the -- for their historic photo collection? >> yes. >> we have not directly contacted them. >> may i suggest that you do so because muni has thousands of photographs of san francisco. muni was established in 1912. and began photographing its lines and the properties along the lines. some of the older ones are still on glass plates. but there is -- there are thousands and thousands of

photographs of san francisco neighborhoods and they are precise as to the location and as to the time when they were taken. and so that is a -- i should think a very substantial resource that ought not to be overlooked. and by the way, over the years, the muni lines have changed so you -- you oughten to think that, well, the property i'm interested in isn't located on a muni line. it is quite likely that it was at some point. so, really don't overlook the muni archives. they're on -- at the barn on presidio and gary. >> yeah. i believe they're digitized through is history pin and they're mapped so it's one of common resources that we love using, really great, clear photos.

the intersection and dates are really great. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner johns. director hillis? >> this is a big deal. one i want to thank you all for your advocacy for this and your predecessors, both preservation commissioners and back when we were the landmarks preservation advisory board and historic preservation fund committee because i remember sitting in rooms and talking about this 15, 20 years ago and i'm sure it was talked about before to do a city-wide survey for many of the reasons you articulated. so it's a big deal. and i'm excited that we're starting it. we haven't the funding to complete it, which couldn't have been done without your advocacy. so thank you all. >> and continue to let us know if we need to be further supportive of that. thank you, maggie, for your presentation today. and i just wanted to ask a very simple question about

lessons learned. have you learned anything that you were not expecting to learn through this survey? and if you did, can you share those thoughts with us? >> we were not expecting to learn that there would be think issues with our app. [laughter] it has been a -- it has been a platform that we have pursued for several years and earlier versions of it didn't necessarily think directly to the arches database and the most recent version of it was still under development and we were one -- we were the main group to help the getty stress test it and it was not something that i had evaluated for a risk assessment because we were so far in. but we're really excite about using work flows. it's actually a much better user interface than collectors and i think it should help things move

faster in the field and enthis it also helps us start developing work flows for in the office so it helps get a template set-up, not only for the field but also in the office. so yeah. that was a big lesson learned. >> i was specifically thinking about you in the field. like in terms of the communities that you have been conversing with, the layers of history and various different ethnic neighborhoods that have developed over time. was there something that you had no idea about? >> we haven't been diving too much into the community engagement part yet because we want the framework reviewed and approved. but what we have experienced in the parker amazon as we're walking sarn some hesitancy towards us being out there. definitely and having the postcards as a hand-out with the translation on the back

has been really huge and explaining proactively going up to community members and saying hi, i'm so-and-so. we're doing the survey, here's a post card. if you have anything for us, we would love to gather any of your stories or photographs and to be able to do that instead of just kind of going -- building by building and not looking at anyone. i think it has been much more helpful to be proactively reaching out to the community as we're out there surveying. that is another big lesson learned. >> thank you. are there any other comments or questions from the commission? seeing none. we're adjourned. >> very good. thank you, commissioners. welcome back. sfgov, if you could stay on for a few more minutes while we do the tour, that would be for a few more minutes while

>> mayor breed: i am san francisco mayor london breed. welcome to the state of the city address. [applause] >> mayor breed: i am happy to have all of you here today. it is really great to be outdoors in person. the mask mandates, vaccine mandates are all gone. if you take pictures answer post. make sure you put disclaimer we removed it in san francisco so i don't get beat up by folk on the internet. thank you and welcome. i want to start