>> everyone good afternoon. >> happy new year indeed this is not here today okay good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission hearing for wednesday, january 15th, 2025. welcome back commissioners. i'm convinced you had a nice break in new year when we

reached the item you are interested in speaking to we asked that we line up on the screen side of the room or to your right each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30s remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up when you're allotted time is reached i will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. there's a very convenient counter on the podium that you can see your seconds tick down. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. andinally i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind at this time i'd like to take role commission president consider your commission vice president and i get sworn here. commissioner baldauf commissioner moroney commissioner vergara here in commissioner right here. we expect commissioner foley to be out sick today. commissioners first on your agenda is general public

comment at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. >> good afternoon and happy new year commissioner. my name is woody la bounty and the president and ceo of san francisco heritage. >> with the new year and new administration new supervisors and a very difficult budget season ahead of us, i just want to reiterate how popular and how important the legacy business program is in the city especially it's an economic engine in a lot of ways for what we're trying to do here in the city. >> and it's actually a benefit to the city budget and the big picture it takes a very small slice of the budget every year and i always advocate for more to make it even more robust and

impactful program. but i just may suggest if it's within your purview or your charge to submit your own attachment the importance of this program to people you meet, to people you know and hopefully try to get the legacy business program funded fully in the next budget. >> that is all. thank you. thank you. happy new year commissioners richard carrillo full disclosure i work for city and county of san francisco as the legacy business program manager. but i'm here today to speak to you as a resident i need to make that very clear because planning staff has a regular habit of complaining to my supervisor. so this is my three minutes. i want to make that very clear. so this is my fifth probably the last time coming before you about the mccloskey building at 1687 market street.

obviously they were trying to demolish a building under ab 2011. i brought up that there was a loophole that was within 500ft of a freeway and that made it back pretty quickly to the state representatives particularly for six weeks six buffy summers remember buffy wicks and she did an amendment to ab 2011 called a b 2243 which made it possible for this developer randall klein to bypass this commission historic preservation commission to demolish this building, the mccloskey building and 1687 market street. it's very specific there is a b 2243 stipulation to protect historic buildings but not if the project was presented in 2020 for which this project was

so unless there's some way to make this project rescinded and he has to propose it in 2025 and this building is going to be demolished. >> so this is very frightening and unfortunately planning department is going along with these draconian state laws instead of fighting back when they should be fighting back and it's very disappointing and there's going to be a lot more historic buildings in san francisco and throughout the state that are going to be threatened and demolished under these draconian state laws. so this is what happens when the state is overriding what the local jurisdictions want to do. so it's very sad that i'm probably going to report the demolition of this building to you and hopefully people hear what's happening and see what's happening and we have up zoning that's coming before us which is also a huge problem that's

going to put a bull's eye on many, many, many, many buildings in our business districts in our residential districts for example, i live in a 1880 edwardian building y that's proposed for up zoning is beyond me. we should not be demolishing all our victorian buildings so just want to bring these things to your attention and hopefully i'm not the only person that's speaking for these things. hank you so much. thank you. last call for general public comment seeing none general public comment is close to commissioners and we can move on to department matters. >> item one. department announcements happy new year commissioners richard gray department staff i just have a few updates for you. the 3400 laguna street the ladies relief home landmark nomination has passed the second reading at the board of supervisors and it's being forwarded on to the mayor for

his signature. so that property is on its way towards becoming our next landmark. i also wanted to give you a quick update on our preservation objective design standards. obviously we are continuing to do outreach particularly with the eia so we are basically moving that item forward to the planning commission at its hearing on february 13th. we were hoping to have the planning commission review back in the sixth but we found that there was a need for additional outreach from the architectural community. as requested by several of our planning commissioners. and so we'll report back on what the planning commission's final determination is on that document. and that concludes my report. thank you. >> thank you. if there are no questions for mr. secretary, we can move on to commission matters at home to consideration of adoption draft minutes for december 4th, 2020 for members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. >> again, you need to come forward seeing none.

public comment is close and your minutes are now before you commissioners. >> so a motion a move to approve the minutes. a second. i thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt your minutes. commissioner maroney i missioner mr. baldauf i commissioner vergara yes, commissioner right. >> yes. mr. nega sworn yes. and commission president matsuda yes. some of commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us on item three commission comments and questions are there any commission comments or questions? >> commissioner nargiwo mr. shukri what can you tell us about the mccloskey building and the state law that it's currently under in terms of the housing? >> i actually don't have a lot of information. maybe director hillis might have some more. i'd have to research our current work on the site.

>> yeah, i'm not i'm not 100% sure but i think what happened is the state corrected and in in you can correct me if i'm wrong prior to this you could use a b 2011 to demo a historic resource a listed historic resource. but they closed that loophole in the law. they also clarified what is a freeway and whatever they actually took out that 500ft from a freeway in put in kind of building conditions you had to comply with. so in some sense it protects you know, it it now does not allow for the demo of a listed resource which is consistent with like sb 423 can't demo a listed resource whether it's listed locally at the state register or on the national register and take advantage of those state ministerial programs. >> but it did allow for projects that had completed their application prior to to some date that i believe them across is project falls into to continue to use that provision which was in the law. so that's how that that project

still still kind of it can do and if it came in today it could yeah and i and now it's consistent with that's before 23 going off of what we had talked about with the city design standards and the preservation design standards that we would encourage developers to come to the planning department first to look at their projects and see what kind of you know what we can do about preserving historic buildings versus applying and then asking the planning department so that you know, once the application is started there's a ticking clock and they cannot have any sort of conversations about that is my understanding. but if if developers can come to the planning department first then there's a little bit more you know, ways to talk

through some of this. >> is that correct? yeah. i mean developers could always come talk to the planning department but again i think a b 2011 was was was was modified so you couldn't come in today. well, let's let's kind of i was trying to broadly say that that that is the case you know that we need to encourage developers to come to the planning department before they apply because once the application is in there's kind of a difficulty having a conversation about historic resources because we can't stop the clock on the state projects. >> that's my understanding of it on ministerial project sure . i mean there is a clock but doesn't prohibit us to talk to the project sponsors in the interim or beforehand which is before i is that we were always encouraging a project sponsors to come talk to us right right. >> because they could choose to to work around a historic resource. >> sure. or or or pursue whether there's

a historic resource or not pursue a ministerial approval process. >> has there been any discussion with the with the group that's doing so the development at the mccaskey building? sure. and what what has been the discussion commissioner nuggets were and we're approaching a little bit too many questions since last item hasn't been agenda ised so we're happy to kind of edit onto the agenda for our next year or send you or have the planner kind of contact you and give you an update on where the project oc yeah, i would like to get an update on that. >> sure. >> would you like to have it placed on the agenda? that would be great. great. we'll add it to the next agenda item i think in the interim also if we can notify we have a new member of the assembly representing the city and county of san francisco as well as assembly member haney if you could just bring it to their attention and i don't know if i have the full permission of the commission but just to make sure that they are aware that the san francisco historic

preservation commission has great concern about and the supervisor and that's what is happening i'm sorry, commissioner right. yes. one question for mr. secretary . thank you for the update on the objective design standards and it sounds like that is going to the planning commission and and there were there updates made to that based on the comments of this commission? >> yes, there were there have been whatever was required in terms of what you adopted we made the minor adjustments to the document that reflects the icbc's comments on the back and so so not all of the comments were picked up but the ones that were if if the abc mandated it then it would have been picked up in the doc. >> okay. okay great. thank you. commissioner vergara sorry for mr. subgrade. wondering if we've heard anything back from the state

office of preservation on our budget last year about no not today in terms of the resolution that was sent to them in august. yeah i can happily ping them again but they have not given us any response if you could. >> yeah, sure. thanks. i'm also concerned i'm responding to the the letter that the copy of which we received from mr. la bounty about the ferry building and the plans for particular lee that cannot be in front of the arcades and i guess my question is to the commission is there anything is there any sense of anything we can do? i know that we can only give feedback because this is not something over which we have control but is there anything that we can do to formalize our our position on the proposed changes to the face of the ferry building and the keep in mind i think the hbc did have

an informational item on the ferry building that would have been done as part of you know, our work with the port, right? >> if we have additional questions or comments on the item you can work with the port and see if we can either re agenda is the item or if there are individual comments that the commissioners might have on the proposal. we're happy to send those forward as well but we've already done one hearing on them. >> so did you want it to be placed back on the agenda? >> yes, please. okay, great. thank you commissioner negus warren so one other thing i just wanted to mention commissioner bright brought up the price preservation design standards that went in front of the planning commission on the ninth. i haven't had a chance to review that video it did and it was not heard by them. >> it was continued out. >> oh it was continue okay. yeah i did have a chance to review rebecca salgado's

updates which were emailed to the commission and most of the minor comments were taken up there were there was looking at the staff report that was created for the 9th january ninth meeting i did not see a mention of our discussion of the building category b buildings and that and so i don't know that that those comments got at least mentioned to the the the planning commission or if that can be included in some some future. >> sure. in the staff report that we prepare for february we can provide an annotation of some of the abc's discussion in general we don't typically go through the discussion items that the commission might have since we focus on the actual adopted measures.

>> that's true. i'm used to seeing some recommendations or considerations in the staff report which i didn't see for those sure happy to amend them. >> thank you. any other comments or questions from the commission? >> just also wanted to acknowledge mr. la bounties comment about supporting the legacy businesses. i think all of us on the commission are very supportive of the continued need and interest of of making sure that we support and honor our small businesses and we are very lucky that we have a great staff person and advocate who does his best to make sure that l districts are represented. so let us know how we can help with that. thank you. >> there's no further deliberation commissioners. >> we can move on to item four election of officers in accordance with the rules and regulations of the san francisco historic preservation commission. the president and vice

president shall be elected at the first regular meeting of the historic preservation commission or held after the first day of january each year or at a subsequent meeting the date of which is fixed by the historic preservation commission at the first regular meeting. so you know commissioner nargis, when did you i'm sorry . >> so commissioners commissioner foley is not here today. i don't know if you want to wait until he returns at the next hpc commission meeting to have the election of officers. >> i see commissioner vergara but i was going to i was going to make a nomination but i'd be happy to put it off until we have a full complement. any opposition to waiting for commissioner foley? >> i think we'd like to wait. mr. griffin commissioners, we should open up public comment members of the public this is your opportunity to address the

commission on this item. last call seeing none public comment is closed and so do i hear a motion to continue to february 5th. i'll move to continue to the february 5th meeting. >> second thank you commissioners on that motion to continue election of officers to february 5th. >> commissioner moroney i missioner bald of all right commissioner vergara yes commissioner right yes. commissioner nygaard sworn yes and commission president masuda yes. so move commissioners a motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us under consideration of items proposed for continuance item five case number 2023 hyphen 00751 to see 8 to 94 page street certificate of appropriateness is proposed for continuanceh 2025 members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item only on the matter of continuance again you need to come forward.

last call seeing none public comment is closed and your continuance item is now before you commissioners there motion i move to continue to march 19th second thank you commissioners on that motion to continue item five to march 19th. commissioner moroney i commissioner bald of i commissioner vergara yes commissioner right. yes. commissioner parker sworn yes. in commission president would sooner yes. so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us under your regular calendar for item six, a, b, c and d for case numbers 2024 hyphen 011131lbr 24 hyphen 011133 lbr 2024 hyphen 01113 to lbr 2024 hyphen 011 4 to 9 lbr for properties at 1801 hate street 75 hug u r t garden

drive 2154 chestnut street and i know 1/16 street respectively these are all legacy business registry applications commissioners before we begin the staff presentation i just wanted to take the opportunity to reintroduce you to two staff people that have joined us today for the legacy business items. i just want to recognize principal planner tina tam who helps manage the legacy business program with heather samuels as well as introduce you to kilani. alcala kilani is new with the planning department. she is a planner one and is an assistant planner with a short term rental team. kalani previously worked at the san francisco international airport as a grants analysis analyst there she acted as a liaison between the faa and sfo to fund capital projects. kilani received her bachelor's degree from uc berkeley and society and environment and outside of work she enjoys cooking, yoga and trying new restaurants in the city and we welcome her to the hbc welcome

. good afternoon commissioners heather samuels planning staff today we have four legacy businesses before you staff will present and afterwards members of the public and business representatives will have the chance to speak during public comment. i will begin our presentation with two of our businesses cha cha cha and the golden gate park band. >> first i will present cha cha cha cha. founded in 1984 cha cha cha cha is a restaurant with locations in the haight-ashbury and mission neighborhoods. cha cha cha cha create a unique caribbean inspired atmosphere providing their patrons with a restaurant experience which feels more like a tropical escape. the business was first established at their location in the haight-ashbury neighborhood at 1801 haight street by founders philip felber and leon pack. philip is puerto rican and originally from new york which helped inspired the cuisine for their restaurant. leon emigrated from china to

cuba when he was 11 years old, which is where he learned about latino culture and food. the business partners had met because leon had opened a taco villa at 1805 haight street next door to where cha cha cha is currently located and philip was part owner of a bar down the street. >> they had met at the bar and both realized their shared interest in the cuisine. and in 1984 they successfully launched the business for a caribbean fusion restaurant. in 1997, philip and leon purchased the bar original mccarthy's at 2327 mission street in the mission district naming the branch cha cha cha at the original mccarthy's to give some background original mccarthy's was opened by dennis mccarthy who was an irish immigrant from county cork. the bar was one one of the first establishments in san francisco to begin legally serving alcohol after prohibition had ended in 1933. to honor this history cha cha cha retained an integrated original mccarthys into the name.

later in 2016 philip and leon wish to retire and since then there had been several changing hands and had briefly closed during the pandemic. now the business is owned by owner of connect as of 2024 what has remained throughout the years is that cha cha cha offers a beautiful atmosphere caribbean tapas world famous sangria, local beers, craft cocktails, entertainment catering and a great venue for events. it was one of the first establishments in san francisco to feature caribbean cuisine and serve sangria. it is believed that only three other restaurants serve sangria in san francisco before cha cha cha cha throughout cha cha cha lifespan has stayed constant is the caribbean soul of the restaurant. because of this staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add cha cha cha cha to the legacy business registry for our second business we have the golden gate park band, the golden gate park band is a nonprofit

organization which plays free concerts at the temple of music and golden gate park every sunday on the last sunday and april to the first sunday in october, the golden gate park band serves the citizens of san francisco and tourists who visit golden gate park. >> they provide an array of musical concerts and arrangements for any listener to enjoy. many of their concerts celebrate holidays such as father's day and mother's day juneteenth pride first responders day and independence day. the golden gate park band was founded by yusof fuchs in september of 1882, making this organization 142 years old. >> the band was originally a support unit for the san francisco company whic was part of the california national guard. >> historically funding for the band came from the park commission, local businesses and the market street cable railway company the golden gate park band has always played in

golden gate park beginning at conservatory valley which is directly opposite of the conservatory of flowers as attendance grew, the band moved to another location in 1886 at a different band shell, which is now where the tennis courts are. on september 9th 1900 the band played its first concert in its new and current home the spreckels temple of music at the music concourse. since the band's conception in 1882, the band has not ceased operations although it had a limited season during the covid pandemic. the golden gate park band is san francisco's oldest music organization in california's oldest ensemble and one of the oldest most continuously performing ensembles in the country through earthquakes, wars, national tragedies, depressions, recessions and pandemics. the band has been playing music for the public in the park to serve and support its community. the band is devoted to performing and entertaining for the visitors of golden gate park be they residents, family

and friends, tourists or the many attendees of the nearby museums and garden and gardens and those who wander through the music concourse now led by their director dop dr. herman gonzalez. the band is comprised of 30 professional museums musicians many of whom grew up in the bay area and love giving the gift of music to the community through excellent concerts and diverse programing with varied themes. the concerts are educational and expose the audience to new music and ideas. the staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add the golden gate park band to the legacy business registry. thank you commissioners. i'll now hand it off to kalani to present the next legacy business. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners colonial color department staff . today i'll be presenting on city optics city optics is an optometrist office located in the marina in cow hollow

neighborhoods. jeffrey rich, doctor of optometry founded city optics in 1988 and has operated in the marina in cow hollow neighborhoods for the past 36 years. city optics has provided san francisco residents and the wider bay area with high quality fashionable glasses and excellent patient care for over three decades throughout its history, city optics has served some notable patrons including robin williams, gavin newsom, paul kantner and elisa donovan. they're also well-known for their vintage signage and exquisite interior. >> the business has also received several awards for its service and dedication to the community. city optics regularly participates in neighborhood events and contributes to local health and wellness nonprofits. the owners and staff contribute to merchant associations and community groups reinforcing their dedication to maintaining the vitality of the neighborhood. >> it is one of the few locally owned optometry businesses in the area and the primary practice in the neighborhood. like many other san francisco,

small businesses, city optics must navigate challenges like rising operating costs, increased competition from online retailers and the need to adapt to rapidly changing consumer preferences. >> city optics also faces pressure in the commercial real estate market which makes long term tenancy a growing concern . as one of the few locally owned optometry clinics in the marina in kohala neighborhoods, city optics plays a vital role in the san francisco's vibrant economy and community. >> jeffrey rich's business hopes to adorn san franciscans with high quality and high fashion frames for generations to come. >> the department is very supportive of this law application and supports a resolution recommending city objects to the legacy business registry. i will now hand it off to honda to present the next business. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners nora montano planning staff our final legacy business is for

the san francisco flower market. the san francisco flower market established in 1912 is the largest wholesale flower market in northern california. >> the market is an iconic hub offering an array of cut flowers potted and blooming plants and floral supplies which has evolved into a global marketplace for floral wholesalers. >> the san francisco flower market proudly serves and supports over 30 vendors which are the vibrant small businesses that make up the market community. >> they also cater to more than 4500 registered small businesses that rely on the market for their daily floral needs. additionally, they're a vital source of employment for over 250 tradespeople who contribute their expertise and labor to ensure the success of the market. >> the san francisco flower market has a rich history that spans over a century and has been housed at several location

locations across the city. >> and just a few weeks ago the market officially moved into its new 901 16th street location in potrero hill. the newly established s.f. flower market incorporated a501c3 nonprofit organization will take over the management of the market at its new location this nonprofit is dedicated to sustaining the northern california floral agricultural industry and supporting small businesses within the city. the department is very supportive of this application and supports a resolution recommending the san francisco flower market to the legacy business registry. >> that concludes staff presentations. we are available for questions. thank you. >> if that concludes staff presentations we should open up public comment members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these legacy business registry applications.

you need to come forward. >> hello commissioners. >> i'd like to give you guys a chance to take a look at this. >> this is a book we have regarding cha cha cha and it goes over just various publications and reviews going back to 1984 and we have this heavy low commissioners i'm here to speak about the inclusion of cha cha cha into the legacy business registry. >> cha cha cha cha was started by my father phillip gelber and leon park in 1984.

>> originally he started to bring puerto rican and cuban food that he had grown up eating in new york to san francisco. eventually it evolved into a top us hot spot with long lines, loud music and flowing sangria. >> i began working at cha cha cha around 15 years ago during the summers off from high school and it wasn't until i started working there that i realized how renowned it was. my teachers all ate there my friends parents all ate there. >> i waited on my childhood crush kelly kapowski from saved by the bell. >> it was then it became clear to me that i was not just working in my family's restaurant but was part of the san francisco institution. >> a lot of the people who were working there at that time those who showed me the ropes of the restaurant industry are still working there to this day . the chefs have been there for decades. bartenders as well. there's a host who's been working there thursday nights for about 30 years now.

>> cha cha cha has hosted politicians and celebrities. mayor frank jordan had his birthday party there in the 90s. i think there's a picture and there you can see i'm the kid with the bowl cut in there. >> it has been recognized in local national and international publications. >> but to me that's not what makes it historic. it's the fact that residts of san francisco have been eating there for over four decades. parents who used to eat there with their children now visit with their grandchildren and enjoy the same cajun shrimp that they had had 20 years before. >> i'm extremely proud of where my father's built and how cha cha cha has persevered over the years. i'm also very happy with how the new owner ors has honored the history of the restaurant while also working hard to continue its legacy. >> i think we all know how hard the restaurant business is in this city and the fact that cha cha cha has had continued success for over 40 years solidifies it as part of san

francisco's history and deserving of legacy business status. thank you very much. >> thank you. can can we continue to pass this around? >> yeah. yeah, please. this is this is oz's. he's the new owner. hello? he's going to say some words as well. >> hello, commissioners. happy new year. happy new year. i'm on a screen like new owner of cha cha cha restaurants. i stand before you to advocate for cha cha cha cha a restaurant that has been a beloved part of san francisco's cultural fabric for over four decades. located in the heart of the haight-ashbury and mission districts, churches are more than just a place to eat. it's a gathering place, a community cornerstone and a living symbol of our city's vibrant diversity and creativity. this establishment embodies the spirit and cultural richness of san francisco making it a deserving candidate for this honor. established in 1984 by philip

culver and liam park, cha cha cha opened its doors on haight street, introducing san francisco to a vibrant fusion of caribbean inspired tapas and a lively dining atmosphere. its success led to expansion into the mission district in 1997 taking over the historic original mccarty's bar, a site with deep roots in the community. for over four decades cha cha cha has been more than just a restaurant. it has been a cultural landmark. its walls haveitnessed countless celebrations, first dates, family gatherings and moments that define life in san francisco. the restaurant has consisted gently championed local artists and musicians fostering a great creative spirit that resonates deeply with our community. its unique blend of caribbean flavors and lively ambiance has attracts a diverse clientele. the restaurant's signature sangria and dishes like chicken and plantains have become synonymous with san

francisco's eclectic cannery seen since its opening in 1984. cha cha cha has captivated not only the hearts of locals but also the attention of critics and media beyond our city's borders. it has been featured in numerous newspapers and magazines including the san francisco chronicle, rolling stone, sunset magazine and even global publications from japan to australia. >> we were so consistently praised its lived atmosphere both caribbean and latin inspired flavors and the warm welcoming experience it offers to all who step through its doors. accolades such as best top us in san francisco and glowing mentions of its iconic sangria reflect the love and admiration it has inspired for generations. what truly sets cha cha cha apart and is its resilience and adaptability in a city that's constantly evolving. cha cha cha stood the test of time. thriving through challenges,

closures and changes by transforming historic spaces like the legendary original mccarty's bar in the mission church has carried forward the legacy of these neighborhoods while adding its unique flair to san francisco landscape. the mission district location while significant historic value occupying the space of the former lodging market is one of the first as participants in san francisco to legally serve alcohol post probation. cha cha cha has preserved the site legacy while infusing it anywhere else. >> that is your time. thank you. thank you. >> good afternoon again commissioners woodie la bounty from san francisco heritage. we support all of these legacy businesses that have been brought before you. i just want to make two special call outs to cha cha cha which was the scene of many late night meals for me when i was dancing at the ibm across the street and then also the golden

gate park band. you know, i think commissioner vergara will testify to this. >> you know there used to be a lot more. it was a 19th century tradition to have bands public bands. companies would have their own bands. municipal agencies would have their own bands. and this golden gate park band essentially continues that legacy. and it's amazing that they've been doing it for so long. and i might suggest that the planning department might start their own band. just a suggestion. but we support all of these businesses. >> thank you. thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment seeing none. public comment is closed. and these legacy business registry applications are now before you commissioners. >> thank you commissioners. mr. vergara just the more examples of what makes san francisco the special place

that it is. >> i'm for all of them. >> thank you. thank you, commissioner wright . i want to thank the applicants for what you do for our city and also for going through the process of this application. >> and this is a rare example of a hearing where actually previously knew and have have been to a majority of the businesses on the list. >> so excited to support this. >> thank you. great thank you. any other comments from the commission? i just had a question and i'm not sure if it's for planning or if it's for mr. carrillo. >> the binder that we just saw from cha cha cha. >> it's great. it really talks about the very long and strong history of that particular small business. and i also have some photos and other documentation from the san francisco flower market

because it was a place where many japan were employed. and i just wanted to know where would a member of the public or somebody who wants to maybe further enhance a business legacy business application or just have further document tation about a particular business, submit their information to? >> i can take a stab and then maybe invite mr. carrillo up there but we're always happy to accept information on on the legacy business program and include it as part of the records that we have and all of the material that's submitted to the planning department is publicly accessible. so great staff can always scan it in, upload it as part of the record and then that way then future you know, i think for future legacy businesses as well as you know when we're all not here anymore and people want to look back to see what was here. yeah. and hopefully will continue. >> yeah we maintain a small archive for you know folks that

are in the know that any member of the public is welcome to check out. >> but yeah we're happy to accept that material. okay. thank you. any other questions about our legacy businesses? >> do i hear motion? is there a motion? i'll move to approve all four applications second commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt recommendations for approval for all of these legacy business registry applications on that motion commissioner moroney high commissioner baldauf high commissioner magara yes. commissioner right. yes. mr. nega sworn yes and commission president masuda yes. so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us on item seven for case number 2024 hyphen 01115 to crv for the north beach national register historic district. this is a request to adopt a resolution of findings before we begin. commissioner nick a sworn you have a disclosure yes i

received a call from aaron peskin this morning and i spoke to him briefly about the north beach nomination for the historic district commissioner . >> right? yeah. i also received a call from aaron peskin and who was just basically expressing his support of the national register district and received a call from bridget maley and also expressing support. >> mr. vergara i also received a call from supervisor peskin along the same lines. >> commissioner baldauf i also receiv■ed a voicemail from supervisor peskin as did i very good commissioners before we begin with staff presentation i'd like to recognize supervisor sartor to make some

introductory remarks. >> >> good afternoon commissioners planning staff danny slaughter district three supervisor speaking to you today not only as the district three supervisor but also a resident of north beach someone who moved to the neighborhood more than a decade ago moving to that neighborhood, choosing to move to that neighborhood because of the history of that neighborhood but also the vibrancy of that neighborhood. >> and i wholeheartedly believe it is our responsibility, particularly this body is responsible city to work to protect the historical and cultural value of our neighborhood. but i do believe we must do it correctly and we must not sacrifice one of those for the other. the history, for the vibrancy and vice versa. and so i want to share a few concerns that our office has heard and that our office has related to this piece before you in the last few weeks we

have fielded a number of questions from constituents from neighbors within the district to all of a sudden are hearing about this who are getting paperwork at the last minute in the mail and they've come to our office with questions questions that we have done our best to walk them through an answer. but there's a lot here that is murky. our office has not received any engagement or briefing from the sponsors behind this plan and we look forward to doing that. people in the neighborhood property owners want to know will this make work more difficult for small modifications to their space? neighbors want to know will this make it more difficult for the many, many vacant properties that we have in our neighborhood to be developed and to be active and part of our neighborhood? and so those are some of the questions that we seek to learn about and have more time and engagement to to hear about.

we've also been made aware of a number of technical shortcomings with this. this proposed district includes a number of buildings that need to be activated and that need revitalization. there are properties here that are burned to the ground and that are almost a decade now that have been holes in our neighborhoods and we want to make sure that that does not that this before you does not make it harder for those spaces to be activated. it includes at least four different parking garages and lots which i do not believe and i hope you do not believe constitute historical integrity and should not be included in this register. >> but perhaps most importantly for us to flag this paperwork it has scant mention of the contributions of a lot of the incredible communities that

have been part of north beach and have made north beach what it is. there's scant reference to the italian community or the chinese community, the lgbtq community and we don't believe that this document does the contributions of those communities justice buildings are important but people make up the history of our communities particularly in north beach and we need more so in concluding i ask that this commission request more time from the state that we work to resolve a number of these technical shortcomings and that we work together to put forward a more authentic a more inclusive document that fills a number of the holes that we see in this process and in this paperwork. >> thank you. thank you. supervisor i get the overhead

please. >> good afternoon, commissioners shannon ferguson apartment staff i'm here today to present the department's written comments on the proposed north beach historic district national register nomination. but first a and in its capacity capacity as a certified local government. the city and county of san francisco is given a 60 day review and comment period before the state historical resource commission acts on a national register nomination. the state historical resources commission will we be hearing this nomination on february 7th and all comments on this nomination must be submitted to h p by friday january 31st. i just wanted to begin about

what is the national register? it's the official list of the nation's historic places worthy of preservation. all national register properties are automatically listed in the california register and afforded consideration in accordance with the california environmental quality act. the nomination was prepared by catherine perron for the northeast san francisco conservancy. >> according to the nomination, the proposed north beach historic district is located in the north east quadrant of the city and its present day condition and appearance as identified is defined by the 1906 earthquake and fire which caused total destruction of the neighborhood. it was immediately and rapidly rebuilt on the previous street grid with wood frame residential flats with ground floor uses as well as a limited number of other buildings. contributing resources include

625 buildings, one site and five objects associated with the washington square park and 99 contributing resources within the boundaries of the proposed district. >> there are five article ten landmarks for california register eligible historic districts and one california registered listed districts the proposed north beach district is adjacent to article ten jackson's square historic district california register a national register eligible chinatown historic district and the california register eligible southeast telegraph hill historic district the map before you shows the california register of eligible districts and within the proposed north beach historic district boundaries as well as adjacent districts national register criteria there are four that are used in evaluating potential national register properties according to the nomination the north beach

historic district is eligible for the national register at the local level of significance under criterion a for community planning and development for its association with the reconstruction of north with more speech after the earthquake and fire and also under criterion a for social and ethnic history for its association with italian chinese bohemian and beat writers, poets, artists and members of the gay community. it's also eligible at the local level of significance under criterion c for its architecture as its buildings are similar in height, scale proportion, ornamentation and style. the nomination proposes a period of significance of 1906 to 1905 1965 which encompassed the aftermath of the earthquake and fire and reconstruction of the neighborhood which was largely complete by 1915. the period of significance concludes in 1965 a date that reflects changes in population shifts and influences of social groups in a neighborhood that was fully built out.

the department agrees that the north beach historic context north beach historic district is locally significant under criteria and a for events and criteria and c and their design construction staff had several suggested edits and comments specifically regarding the italian and chinese heritage as this section needs more documentation and also support on the people who are important to this heritage. the context for criterion a community planning and development doesn't clearly demonstrate the district's importance within the context and it's very broad. some of our recommendations include developing more concise statement of significance for this criterion and including more specific information on the design and development of the physical structure of the community regarding the proposed period of significant

chance which is 1906 to 1965, we would recommend considering a period of significant of 1906 to 1939 for architecture as these dates would more closely reflect the de la construction and the dates of any significant alterations and additions. another suggestion is to consider establishing separate periods of significance for each area of significance to clarify and define its important historic period. additionally, we would love to see individually significant properties called out in the nomination and references made to existing national register and california register listed and eligible districts within the proposed boundaries. we also suggest that a more comprehensive discussion of integrity that better defines essential features physical features whether visible or not how they compare to other properties and which aspects of integrity are particularly vital to the historic districts

and we suggest referencing and using integrity standards found in the north beach historic context statement the lgbtq historic context statement and the neighborhood commercial buildings historic content text statement we had a suggestion about where cottages that these small buildings are not visible from the public right away and haven't been included in the resource count as contributors to the historic district. and these seem to be very important buildings to that district. it suggests that maybe more research and bodies needed about this building type its significance and if they're contributory or noncontributory with moved buildings most of the moved buildings that are pointed out in this nomination or rear cottages which are not included in the historic resource count. so we suggest maybe moving this

section to to the residential rear cottages and small building sections. it's background information regarding the district boundaries we notice that they seem to be largely based on integrity and historic rather than history or significance or result from the boundaries of existing eligible or listed historic districts. many of the properties on the periphery of the proposed district appear to be more associated with other listed or eligible districts and may not directly contribute to the boundaries of the significance of the pretoria's district. the boundaries are expansive and perhaps it leads to a proposed historic district that lacks consent, ity and cohesion . we recommend maybe reassessing and revising the district boundary boundaries and perhaps

to only the core commercial streets. the boundary justification needs more explanation as it lacks specificity of how the boundaries are selected and it needs to clarify why such portions of a historic district are included or excluded. the nomination would benefit from the inclusion of clear and descriptive photographs of each contributing property in the district and also perhaps annotations on the area of significance and period of significance that each contributing property is associated with. finally, planning staff recognizes that the north beach historic district has long been an area with a high concentration of sites, buildings, structures and objects that are emblematic of san francisco's wide and diverse history. >> the proposed recommendations are intended to enhance, clarify and refine the nomination to better set the groundwork for future work in this neighborhood to better accommodate for stronger

integrity and clear boundaries . the author might consider amending an existing nominations and or creating several smaller historic districts to allow for a more cohesive themes and significance. >> so staff requests that the commission review the national register nomination and provide comments on whether the north beach historic district meets the national register criteria under a criterion a and c staff also request that the commission opine on if the nomination should be amended. and finally the commission should recommend or not recommend the nomination for listing in the national register the department recommends adopting a resolution of findings to be forwarded to the h p this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. i'd like to invite catherine potter and the author to to the podium.

yeah if you want the awesome thank you. no i have a standing i thank you thank you. there's three minutes here. okay okay thanks.

>> good afternoon commissioners . i'm catherine petra and i'm the principal prepare of the nomination and before you today very happy to be here. it's kind of an honor i have to say. i represent a very large group of historians, volunteers and neighbors as we bring this nomination forward. we thank the department for a time for time to address the commission. next slide please. my time is limited so i'm not going to focus on the merits or worthiness of north beach as a district. the documents speak for themselves but i will use my time to provide other relevant background information including trying to cover all the topics that are before you on this image. i will say if i don't get get through everything especially some of the very specific things i'd like to talk about

with staff recommendations i'm very very much welcome your comments at the end of this presentation. so next slide please. this timeline illustrates the interest in north beach the gathering of information especially related to its rapid rapid and basically one year reconstruction after the 1906 earthquake. this work goes back decades. this project has deep roots meaningful to the neighborhood. it has not been undertaken quickly nor is it a reaction to certain other pressures. the north beach historical project grew out of neighborhood interest starting in the 1970s. this interest was centered around saint peter and paul's church. the italian community and the italian welfare agency. actually it then moved forward through the late 70s into the early 80s thanks to esteemed scholars diana carmena and dino

snell who published books about north beach in 1978 and 82 respectively. historians really esteemed and long time historians that have done work in san francisco including and bloomfield jean claude m nancy olmstead, philip choi, randolph delahanty, margaret price. alice carey. paul fisher so many more. and from the very beginning michael corbett was instrumental. but the point is is that untold members of the communities families that had stakes in the neighborhood since the 1906 recreation volunteers, architects, neighbors, people who came to the neighborhood knew people over time were all deeply embedded in this effort to document north beach history and this has resulted in as you see on this slide the adoption of the historic context statement and the national register nomination that's before you today slide, please.

thank you. so the the historic i'm mentioning this because i think just three of you were here in december of 2022 when the north beach historic context statement was unanimously adopted. so i'm reminding the commission that document was authored by michael corbett. it's deeply, deeply researched, comprehensive and provides voluminous historic basis for the historic basis for the national register nomination when the context statement was approved two years ago, all of the basic building blocks that we use in the nomination were set forth the boundaries, the periods of significance, the integrity framework that was all adopted by this commission unanimously it was noncontroversial. in fact it was adopted with accolades i would say and further that day december 7th i

think 2022 when it was approved. commissioner black noted and i'm quoting she was looking forward to future discussion means regarding designation of individual buildings and districts. so here we are. i just want to say one thing that the historic context statement and the national register nomination are two very different kinds of documents. they do different things and so where the context statement is a very in-depth history in credible i mean i know you've all read it most of you have read it the national register nomination is is not that and i'll talk about that in a second. >> so just in terms. >> next slide please. of the national register program this is a federal program. it's administered by the national park service in conjunction with every state's office of historic preservation. >> it's an absolutely honorary

designation. there's no additional oversight and it's very distinct from local districts in that sense. the two primary differences are the designation process and subsequent oversight in local districts. a district contributor would come to this body and seek a certificate of appropriateness that is not so for the national register there. the city is not directly involved in any and in that review and those individual properties the national register designation for contributing properties don't require that review. i hope i'm saying that clearly and correctly. also the national register provides certainty as to what's a contributing resource and what isn't and it can be helpful for homeowners not to perhaps have to do an additional historic research on their property and also there

is an ability to apply for incentives financial incentives for contributors to historic districts. there's more to say about that but i think i have to move on this next slide shows this is kind of important this duck this image was in the historic context statement. it shows the boundaries of the previously studied areas. the green boundary represents 2019 area surveyed the red boundary dates to 1982 and that incorporates 11 buildings that were surveyed at that time. the next image is the district boundary related to this effort to the historic to the national register historic district boundary. you can see that this is much smaller than the areas that were previously surveyed. >> it this did this boundary

was determined after much consultation and study we walked the neighborhood with other preservation professionals and architects bill safire, bridget maley, shane watson and we discussed what would be the most logical boundary we did avoid already designated areas like the jackson square historic district but we think it's totally crucial and critical to capture the columbus avenue spine the broadway spine and it completely relates to the history that's spelled out in the designation. i just also wanted to say that i hope i have the chance to address stuff comments but i might i just want to say now that the district i would say the planning department's preference s and a lot of things that we heard our preferences there maybe not consistent with national register requirements and

guidelines. the preference for a small district is something that we see. it's maybe planning department philosophy or something like that but in fact this registered district could be larger and include many more intact blocks and buildings with integrity in general. the national register has makes no specification about size of districts. >> a district could be a few buildings or it could be hundreds of buildings as ms. ferguson mentioned in north beach we have 631 contributors and 90 non contributors. but for comparison the hill apartment and hotel national register district is comprised of 332 parcels uptown tenderloin 477 parcels and the presidio which is a national historic landmark district has encompass is 1166 parcels of that 662 are contributing.

i could go on but i'm going to stop there. >> the next slide please. >> so just you know where i am on time. >> well, you were introduced as part of staff's presentation so i didn't start at timer. i don't okay i was told i had five units. okay. okay. so your five minutes are practically up. >> okay, so i just want to say here that the nomination does what it needs to do and what it's intended to do if it didn't, the office of historic preservation from sacramento would not have referred it to back to the c, l, g and to this body for your comment and review. >> so it does what it needs to do. i just want to say that i i'm going to jump ahead to quick discussion of contributors versus non contributors. >> this is a really interesting

thing to do in the field when you're looking at buildings and you're trying to understand does this fit into the context? does it retain integrity or what are the historical themes that are related to all these different building types garages included? that's a historical theme of the of the district and so when you weigh all those together and you look at the buildings and you say does this have integrity, is it a contributor or not, you have to say yes, no contributor non contributor. there's no black there's no gray area. it's black or white and with the vast majority of buildings it's you can make a quick determine visually during field inspection. >> yes it's a contributor yes yes yes. has all these these parts when we looked at the verdi building we seriously we spent a lot of time figuring out what what we would decide contributor or non

contributor the verdi building and i'm talking about the about the building that's in the intersection of columbus union and powell that was the site of this horrible fire in 2017 that building seriously was seriously decimated by the fire there's no no doubt about it. it's a heartbreak for the neighborhood and everyone is working together to see a project happen there, not to see some not to see it opposed the reason why we decided it qualified as a contributor is we don't assess interiors when we decide contributor are non contributors status the interior is gone so it was a moot point. we didn't have to think about that and the pieces that make this building significant important and one of the most important buildings in the district dating to 1915 at this

14 at this most incredible location defining for the neighborhood over decades that those things are still there. i know it sounds you know it's not burnt to the ground. the exterior is there. the window openings, the rhythms they're there. the cornice is there. it still conveys the appearance of a 1914 building very much diminished. finally, i just want to say that i really appreciate the close reading from staff. >> i think some of us might so really appreciate the close reading from staff on the nomination and some of the comments. everything is considered of course and some things you know we will think about and decide how to incorporate or change but also i just want to get back to that idea about city staff preferences and some things that are asked for are

not required by the national register so i'll leave it at that. >> any questions? i'm very happy to answer them. okay. if that concludes your comments we should open up public comment members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is kate magee and i'm here today on behalf of my client jeff gerow, the managing director of the ownership group for 1636 1656 powell street, otherwise known as the verde building. jeff deeply regrets not being able to attend in person today due to a scheduling conflict. however, he has been actively engaged in this matter speaking with hundreds of neighbors and local associations to understand their concerns and to develop a shared vision for the site. he remains available and open to further discussions with any stakeholders. >> this property is located in the heart of north beach adjacent to washington square park and bounded by columbus union and powell streets.

it previously consisted of two structures a three storey apartment building with a basement and a parking garage. unfortunately lee on march 17th, 2018 a fire destroyed the apartment building, leaving behind only remnants of its facade pillars supporting charred walls now covered in graffiti. the image of this on the overhead projector for the past seven years jeff has worked tirelessly to redevelop this site, but his efforts have been stymied by significant regulatory hurdles rising construction costs, high interest rates and insurance challenges. issues we are all becoming too familiar with especially in light of what is happening with our neighbors in l.a.. we are here to oppose the nomination of the proposed north beach historic district and in particular the inclusion of the verde property as a contributing property. i'd like to briefly outline the key reasons for this opposition which is summarized in the letter i sent to you earlier this morning and have made

copies available to you here. >> similarly the apartment building no longer exists. the building is gone and retaining it in the historic district undermines the integrity of the nomination process. the parking garage is not historically significant. i have a picture of that as well. >> it's baffling to imagine a parking garage being labeled a contributor to a district that supposedly represents the character of north beach. there are conflicts with local historic assessments including these remnants as contributors to the subject site to the planning department's pending preservation design standards. further, this designation contradicts local assessments which do not consider the garage to be historic. this creates unnecessary regulatory confusion and increases both the cost and risk of development. as you know, the true spirit of

north beach lies not in freezing its architecture in time but in its people and culture. dynamic forward thinking and welcoming to new ideas. thoughtful redevelopment can occur and can honor this spirit while addressing the critical need for housing and revitalizing a key location that has remained in disrepair for far too long. on behalf of destro and the ownership group i respectfully request that the commission not recommend the adoption of the north beach historic district nor these buildings as contributors to it. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners . my name is blair helsing. i'm the president of north beach neighbors. we were formed in 1981. we're a neighborhood nonprofit association for neighborhood improvement and we have over 400 members currently. >> this application has come to the broad attention of north

beach residents very late in the process for many only since last sunday. there has been insufficient time for the affected residents to review and comment, particularly those within the map boundaries as proposed north beach neighbors on behalf of residents is taking up the study of and participation in the sequence of future steps for the application. in our opinion clearly the public review and comment period should be extended significantly. this concludes my remarks. >> thank you. >> hello commissioners. >> my name is nick ferris and i am born and raised in north beach. i went to saints peter and paul which you saw there and i now have the pleasure of serving as the president of the telegraph hill dwellers.

i'm very proud to speak in strong support of the effort to designate north beach as a historic district in the national register of historic places. and i'm asking for your support in nominating north beach north beach as a unique neighborhood with a rich and cultural architectural heritage that is profoundly shaped. san francisco's identity from early from its early days as the home of italian immigrants who rebuilt san francisco after the 1906 earthquake to its role as the birthplace of the beat generation. north beach has always been a place of creativity diversity and resilience. iconic landmarks like saints pier and paul church city lights bookstore the cafes and restaurants that line columbus avenue are not just beloved by residents they are a magnet for visitors from all over the world. i encourage people to read the historic context statement which is a key supporting document for this. >> the designation of north beach as a historic district will help protect these irreplaceable cultural assets in many ways.

for example, property owners can become eligible for federal historic preservation tax credits that cover up to 20% of the costs of rehabilitating that income producing buildings . that's an important incentive to maintain and restore historic structures and residential units. it will also open doors to preservation grants from the federal and state levels to support the preservation, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic properties. these plus many more benefits will provide support to our neighborhood the tenants, property owners, small business owners and it will ensure that future generations can continue to walk these streets and feel the soul of the neighborhood just as we do today. >> in light of this i urge you to please join us and support this nomination for listing on the national register of historic places. let's work together to celebrate and safeguard the very spirit that makes this neighborhood so special. >> thank you very much for your consideration.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. >> my name is nancy shanahan and i'm the current president of the northeast san francisco conservancy, the sponsor of the north beach historic context statement as my patron explained, was a unanimously adopted by this commission on december 7th of 2022 with a recommendation that a historic district for north beach be pursued. that recommendation we took to heart and we're finally we're pleased to finally have a district nomination proposed for the national register of historic places for commissioners who were not on the p c in 2022. i'd like to briefly share the years of community involvement

in this effort beginning as my parents said in the 70s and early 80s the initial research and survey work was led by the community based north beach historical project which was largely an italian based project under a contract with the state office of historic preservation vision with a federal national preservation act grant. it resulted in the 1992 north beach context statement an architectural survey completed by many of the architectural historians ms. patterson mentioned including historian and bloomfield. the 1982 survey was officially adopted by the board of supervisors in 1999 and about the same time ms. bloomfield began an update and expansion of her work with funding from s.f. heritage and s.f. beautiful.

her work was completed. >> although delayed, these efforts were renewed in 2004 by the organization i represent which is the northeast san francisco conservancy. as a five on 1c3 we were able to raise funds from foundations, nonprofits and individuals from $25 $200 to $500 or more to engage michael corbett to update and expand on all of the earlier work and to complete the revised north beach context statement that was adopted by this commission in 2002 2022. that context statement as you know is the source material for the nomination before you today and if anyone would like to have a copy of that i'd be happy to email it to you. the context statement that is

so complete. >> i thank you commissioners for your consideration today of this worthy nomination. i also want to thank the many, many volunteer people in the community and volunteer professionals photographers that have contributed to this over the many years that got us to this point. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm stan hayes and along with nancy shanahan on the co-chair of planning and zoning for the telegraph hill dwellers, we join in the comments that nick farris, our president of hd and others who are here today and have stated. the listing of north beach on the national register will celebrate its historic italian heritage and culture as one of the largest and most important

populations of immigrant italians in the united states. the state office of historic preservation says it will quote the property is associated with san francisco's reconstruction following the 1906 earthquake and fire. cultural significance for its association with the italian and chinese communities. bohemian and beat writers and counterculture of the 20th century. lgbtq plus history and architecture including the work of a large number of master architects. this nomination is the culmination of work that began in 1980 45 years ago. the work of so many people over the years has, as you've heard, resulted in the development and the peaks at unanimous approval of a 269 page north beach historic context statement and the 331 page national register nomination that's before you today.

that's a total of 600 pages detailed descriptions of the history, architecture, culture and significance of north beach . we believe that this wealth of detail more than meets the criteria to support your recommendation for listing north beach a listing on the national register is an honorary only only designation. it's going to provide prestigious recognition to the cultural heritage of north beach. it's going to bolster community pride. it's going to encourage the preservation of historic properties and possible tax benefits as well. we think and we hope you'll agree that north beach is one of the areas in san francisco most worthy of being listed on the national register. please recommend north beach as defined in the nomination for listing on the national register of historic places. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i would like to just continue from what stan hayes had said and say, you know, plaques are nice to remind you of what once was there but to actually see, feel and hear our history is what's important with this nomination. so i'm urging your support. i am theresa flynn, derrick of north beach tenants committee and i've lived in north beach for 40 plus years. i had also worked at the telegraph hill neighborhood center, the original settlement house that helped people who were new immigrants coming to america to learn english skills, to learn sewing etc. etc. and child care and a well baby clinic etc.. >> so this is my background in terms of what i know of the community as well as the greatest historian for me has been my my former landlady who

was born in 2000 and or 2000 1914 and i lived in her father's building for 33 years. >> so it is she who told me that when following the earthquake of 1906 that it was about rehousing rebuild building as quickly as possible. >> both the merchants and the workers families and that that has carried on for her as a landlady to make sure that it is local workers that have housing and that she believes that that made it much stronger stable community. so a lot of the landlords even today those with deep roots in north beach talk about the importance of of housing local workers so asking the first question when a potential tenant comes is do you work in

the neighborhood? it is a tight community. i can speak to many of the probably 150 buildings that i have been in that are beautiful from the outside because they're 100 years old. >> they are also affordable. they are rent control. it is really important that we preserve these amazing buildings and above all it is the people but it's also the buildings that show where you can see here feel the actual history of this particular neighborhood. and again a lot of my my experience has been those with the italian community and then also with the chinese community and hearing their history. >> so i really want to urge your support for this nomination. >> thank you so much. thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. my name is andy katz. my family has lived in north beach for 75 years and i'm a native of this unique neighborhood. i'm here to support the nomination of the north beach historic district to the national register of historic places. >> i grew up frequenting the lake city legacy legacy businesses which make up the fabric of this historic neighborhood. from the café trias founded in 1956 to tomatoes which opened in 1935 and contains the first wood burning brick oven on the west coast. the italian american roots in north beach run deep as well as wide throughout the district and should be recognized prized. indeed, tourists from all over the world come to north beach for its small scale its family run businesses, its narrow alleyways and its charming european architecture. i'm proud to call this neighborhood home. >> recognizing north beach on the national register of historic places will help

preserve its legacy for future generations and indeed the now national register of designation is a lovely letter to our neighborhood by many longtime residents and business owners. thank you very much for considering my comments. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. >> i'm courtney krueger i submitted a letter of support which i hope you all got. for what it's worth, i'm a resident of district three where the recommendation where the national register nomination is located and a neighbor to the proposed district i wanted to note or at least recognize that while it's important that the hearing is being held in the issue being discussed, it is just a courtesy from the office of historic preservation to its local government to comment on the national register nomination.

>> i'd also like to note that i was a member of the historic preservation commission. i was staff to the historic preservation commission in san jose as their historic preservation officer. i also certified local government. i worked for many years at the national trust for historic preservation and in all of those capacities i've read a lot of national register nominations and i'd like to to let you all know that from my perspective this one is exemplary the depth and the breadth of the research, the level of community involvement, the years in development, the professionalism of the background documents like the historic context statement unanimously adopted by this body all lead to a recommendation of supporting that the district nomination. >> i'd also like to note that it's great that the planning department spent the time and

effort to review the nomination so thoroughly but i would note that their comments from my perspective are better suited to a local landmark designation and i would encourage the the city to think about creating a local landmark along the lines of the national register nomination. >> but those specifics are more aligned with an article ten landmark than designation than the national register. >> i'd also like to reiterate that listing in the national register carries little to to any effect with the exception of the the incentive fees that are provided through the national register like the historic tax credit the not in conclusion the nomination is deserving of support and i hope that you all will will do so and thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> thank you for.

hi my name is sarah luker. i have lived in san francisco since 1997. >> i am the lucky owner of a multi-unit building in north beach where i'm also a landlord. i'm here representing not only my partner raymond yoon but other peers who are owners in both individual buildings and multi-unit taxis. we strongly support this the lowest possible listing. i also grew up in new mexico in a nationally and state protected historic building. >> we understand the ramifications as building owners and we're very, very supportive. >> thank you for your time. thank you. >> good afternoon again commissioners. >> woody la bounty from san francisco heritage.

>> planning staff write in this nomination it agrees that the north beach historic district is locally significant under criterion a and c. >> the department also quote recognizes that the north beach historic district has long been an area with a high concentration of sites, buildings, structures and objects that are emblematic of san francisco's wide and diverse history. that's a formal way of saying that north beach is a beloved historic place in a that's synonymous with the beloved historic city. >> if you were to poll random san franciscans or any visitor to the city and ask them which neighborhood would you consider a historic district? >> north beach is going to be top 1 or 2. i mean maybe chinatown and chinatown deserves a national register nomination as well. >> i hope it comes here before you is a more than 300 page document developed from more than 40 years of work by historians efforts to define and nominate a north beach historic district date back to

the 1980s. this is not a work of caprice or a weaponized tactic to stop housing. it is a set of guidelines and a great and scholarly clarification supported by decades of research and expertise of what we should consider special and historic and what is right now not historic districts are a big reason people visit cities. they are economic generators of tourism. north beach with its architecture, its history as a cultural haven and incubator its italian-american flavor is a big reason why conventioneers come here, why people start businesses here. >> historic district designation does not freeze a neighborhood. it just provides guidance and context on what changes can be made and still keep a place special. >> this document identifies 90 parcels that don't contribute to a potential historic district that might be excellent sites of opportunity to increase density in north beach. it's an opportunity here and

those that are identified as contributing are still open to change. being listed as a contributor to the district does not mean a housing project can't happen. it just means it may be exempt from some of the state's streamline zoning programs that we allow our excellent planning staff to take a closer look at the proposal. it's really just like take a look another look at this for truly unique and valued places that doesn't seem like much to ask. >> and if you think it's not possible for a listed building to be demolished, i direct everybody's attention to the next item on today's agenda things can change. there's a local landmark that's facing the demolition fate. >> so san francisco supports this nomination and has sent that message to the state historic resources commission. >> we hope this commission feels the same and will offer its strong approval to the state for recommendation to the keeper of the national register. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment on this matter.

this pattern is requesting another comment. no no final last call. seeing none public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. >> commissioner in august warren i just want to address some of the kind of general comments that have come up and maybe mr. sue cray and the planning department can opine on my comments. so in terms of national register nomination versus the context statement, i think there are some nuances there and from the nomination it clearly is more robust than

other nominations that have have been done in the past. we haven't seen many nominations in recent years. so when you look back at the earlier nominations from the 80s and 90s they're quite spare and so this is quite robust. i do see that there are some comments you know and i'm sure miss patterson would has has said that there are some comments that can be refined in the document. and i also wanted to mention which mr. la bounty in public comment had referred to in terms of housing and the state regulations for housing. when something is nominated to the national register it is automatically put on the california register and the california register provides some protection to historic buildings from regulations state housing regulations.

i am not the expert on that but you know are are a mandate at the historic preservation commission is to protect historic resources so that that is something that i feel that it's it's an important thing to do and i can imagine that was a incentive along with the 40 years of background research that this entailed. so in any case i, i, i feel like there are good reasons to move forward with this and in terms of contributing resources that the community might be worried about in this nomination, those would are likely contributing resources prior to this nomination and they are reviewed the same way as other other properties would

have been in the past decade. so besides landmark buildings when our buildings come to us to be reviewed more closely but contributing buildings that are category a are reviewed by the department when there is a development associated with it. so it would be no more rigorous than what has been in the past in that respect. i do want to ask mr. sue cray what the process is for the national register nomination. i believe mr. patterson had submitted this nomination to the state office of historic preservation for review by the state historic resource commission and they referred it to the local government to provide comment. and my understanding from the

comments was that that is uh oh i forget the word complimentary or courtesy courtesy thank you courtesy. so what are the next steps in the process and is there an opportunity to make updates prior to the commission reviewing it or does that happen after the commission reviews it in this case we are your comments will be forwarded on to the hrc, the state historical resources commission for their consideration and the shc can take any other number of actions themselves they can hear your comments and ask for additional information and continue the items for a future hearing. they can approve it and forward the nomination on to the keeper of the register which is the federal body that basically or person that basically reviews the nominations themselves.

they can also reject the nomination if they don't think the nominations adequate enough. so right now our role in this as the historic preservation commission is advisory. it is mandated that they do send out notice to the local government and give ample time for this. so yes, it is courtesy but it's also required as part of their own mandate to reach out to local governments and provide them opportunity for review and the hbc is the city and county of san francisco's official body when it comes to things that are dealing with historic resources. so review of national register nominations is fully within your purview. >> can any other people from the public submit their own comments to the state historic resources commission? >> yes, that's correct. so the shc will take member comments from any member of the public in terms of notice as i

understand for very large nomination ins they aren't required to do individual property owner outreach. they can basically post a notice in the newspaper, a local newspaper and give them between 30 and so what is it no less than 30 but no more than 75 days for review on a pending nomination between them. so at this point since the nomination has been set, the nomination date has been set by the state for february 7th a notice or some kind of newspaper ad would have been posted by the state but the state does not notify us of what that notification is. i will i have further comments but i want to allow other commissioners to comment. >> commissioner wright you think thank you. i do have a question for ms..

patron and that is well, i spoke with staff as well and they were unaware of any comments from the state historic resource commission on the submitted national register district application and since they were recently since that was recently shared with them but mr. patterson were there comments from the state historic resource commission on on your submission if i understand correctly the commission well has not yet made public sorry i meant to clerk to clarify that from the office of historic preservation . >> exactly. so we are in this period

between the time that the nomination has been submitted and the time that the nomination will be heard before the state historic resources commission and in addition to planning staff comments and recommendations, different edits have come in and those are we're holding those and though the document will be edited for an example one i just also wanted to clarify one thing is that in response also to one of the public commenters saying that the notification period is inadequate and the office of historic preservation notified by mail each and every homeowner in the district, each and every property owner in the district ticks get one notification but everyone else gets an individual notification. those were mailed in november of 2024 for a seven day period for people to review. as a result, a neighbor sent a

resident noticed that there was an error. we misidentified allen ginsberg in a photo that was in the thing and she caught it. so we're holding on to those kinds of things and edits and then there will be time after the state historic resources commission reviews the document to finalize it and forward it to the national park service. does that answer your question ? yeah. yeah, i think so. so as part of this period you have not yet received comments from ohip but you will be taking and that will all be kind of wrapped into the presentation to the state historic resource commission. >> so the office of historic preservation reviewed the nomination and they had no substantive comments and no request for editing. if they had we wouldn't be advancing it at this point. >> okay. yeah, that was my question. >> okay. so yes, thank you. >> so just just a couple of

observations and comments here and you know as as there have been the various presentations and i think kind of the key questions here really come down to a question of what are the national register requirements versus kind of the staff present preferences and i know that we have, you know, exemplary preservation and planner planners and preservation staff here in the department and they always do a robust, thorough review and so i think one question kind of to an extension really of that is is a question about really like the san francisco standard maybe the higher bar versus what our typical national registered districts and i'm

afraid i haven't seen a whole lot of of recent national register district submissions even from from other jurisdictions that that might be a basis of comparison. there was the question here also about the national register, the differences between national register and contact statements across question that i have might be related to the ability to amend the district in the future and i think ms. patterson was just speaking to the fact that there will be time after the after the state historic resource commission hears this and has their meeting for some final edits before it's submitted to the keeper of the register. so some thoughts and those are kind of some thoughts that i

have now i at this point take no exception really to going ahead and sharing the staff's very thorough comments for the purposes of the state historic resource commission review and they're kind of comments and requirements on the district. but i don't know if other commissioners have further comments. thank you. commissioner roni i'm admittedly this is my first review of a national district application. however i do find it broad in very vast amount of research done here and i appreciate that . however there in such a vast dense community there are a variety of character defining features within different pockets that are currently identified as other

neighborhoods other districts and i've i find it very difficult to wrap my head around this calling it all north beach when there are specific areas within which there are character defining features specific to those areas and to say that's a general north beach district characteristics is a bit of an overreach there and i think the planning department has already identified a number of districts i find that problematic that we call it makes such a broad statement about district culturally there may be some significance there but architecture lee i think it is too vast of a request to call it one consistent neighborhood. i think that having tightly defined character defining features in different districts some of which are already identified will be a much better approach to clarifying, quantifying, providing that context for future development

of these non contributory sites and or any sites that may be lost in the future. >> thank you. any other commissioners? commissioner baldauf yes, i had a conversation with ms. ferguson and i but i want to sort of ask the question again here because i think there's still is in my mind this confusion about whether or not we are imposing potentially imposing additional burden or not and we say this is on honor you know, more honorary but we also then say that it automatically becomes a state district being a national district and because of the variety of bills that have been passed recently and we've been

coping with all year it feels like then addition a level of protection is then afforded because these properties become state recognized properties. but then ms. ferguson told me that all of these buildings are of a category that they would have been reviewed anyway right now. >> so i want to ask mr. shoukry or ms.. >> ferguson to very clearly comment on this. >> sure. commissioner baldauf, i will take a stab and then ask ms.. ferguson to splement some of the questions. >> so national register designation is largely honorific in terms of our overall regulatory review process, right? so the biggest impacts that it has in terms of a local review process if you know in terms of our categories for classifying

buildings category a historic resource category b unknown or h eligible and category c not a historic resource a landmark dust or a national register district would change some of those categories from b to c and it would basically basically we would require any exterior alterations on those properties for category h buildings to be reviewed by preservation planner and then we usually will review for example the background documentation to provide us guidance as to why a building is significant or not to help guide basically the work that's happening there. so that's one kind of i guess impact you will of of national register designation. the other factor that comes into play is projects that use state or federal funding. a national registered district has some impact in terms of

additional review under section one of six of the national historic preservation act. but i will say most projects outside of for example affordable housing or projects that are funded by a federal or state agency for example don't typically use state or federal funding commonly definitely project private projects do not . so it is not common for us to see that kind of level of review and or that kind of project being kicked off particularly in san francisco. and then the last one would be relative towards the ministerial housing laws that have been recently passed by the state. and the simplest way to think about the impact of historic designation in terms of housing production is anything that is listed in a listed meaning designated in a federal, state or local historic register is not allowed to use a state

housing law to basically move it forward. so while the state has basically told san francisco we want you to speed up your process and that's where sb 423 comes into play. the state did include some carve outs within the myriad of various laws they have between sb 423 ab 2011 you know so on and so forth. >> it did include carve out specific for historic resources because they didn't basically allow you to demolish a historic resource in particular. so if a project now is proposing demolition of a category a building you're not allowed to use a ministerial housing law. they can still use our typical process. so for example in those instances a sequel would apply for example and likely in air because the demolition of a

historic resource is always considered a significant and adverse impact upon the environment due to case law and any other number of things. but that's the that's the kind of in a nutshell how all of this kind of impacts this. so i think ms.. ferguson passed out a map, correct. and shannon, do you want to come and talk to it? >> yeah. so this map shows what the current categories are within the proposed north beach historic that we put up on the projector for the members of the public as well just as a so as you can see in the map that we provided we just did a quick assessment obviously we know that north beach already does

contain a number of historic resources and has had a number of buildings that have been assessed in some form or capacity. so this just kind of breakdown breaks down what what the existing environment looks like. so for example in the purple in particular in the purple areas a lot of those areas would now basically be category a rather than category b as a result of the nomination. >> but if i can use your my microphone if i'm understanding this diagram it looks like there will be more category c or below because based on the document they showed us there were more and so in a way it actually might make development of those properties easier. >> correct? so based on this potentially i think the nomination calls out i think 60 buildings or sites

as non contributing to the whole if if finally and it looks like there are a lot fewer than 60 blue sites on this map. correct. and that's something to keep in mind. this just recognizes the buildings that we have assessed in most cases or made a determination on. >> so i guess i want to go to this very building that was brought up. >> can you bring us up to speed on what the issues that that building has faced from a regulatory planning department set of issues since it was made a sort of object case of why we should be opposed to this? >> we can talk fairly limited to that capacity in the realm of the nomination. so relative towards the existing environment and since we have some planning staff here i might also draw upon

their expertise on the very building but in particular there was a fire the exterior walls of the building remain right and i think the current category of that building is already recognized as a category and i'll ask jonathan zimmer to confirm that it's coming off the wing here. >> jonathan miller department staff so there was a previous evaluation because there's been a few submittals for that property and we did complete historic resource evaluation as we found that the garage structure was noncontributory to the district and was not a resource. >> we found that the four walls were not a resource as a building because there's not a building there anymore but still remained significant as a it's not even an object i think it's site it's in the it's an h r there's seven different categories of resources and we found that it fit cleanly

within one of those and remained a resource but not as a building but as something else. >> so but if i could just clarify on that building because we've had discussions with with the supervisors office and the building owner as well as the department of building inspection one the department of building inspection does not consider it to be a building anymore. it's it's not one there is no interior of that building. so today they could currently avail themselves of you know ask me for 23 or other state ministerial i think if there have not been tenants that were on that site in the last decade they could avail themselves of state programs like sb 423 to propose a project there if this building's called out as a contributor of what's remaining of the building is call that a contributor in the district it could not. >> so that's in essence i don't think that's your question you're getting it so demolition of an existing building if it's not listed in a district or as

a contributor to a district could happen under state programs. ministerial if they meet other criteria whereas if they're listed in as a contributor they could not. >> but because there have been tenants within the last ten years that i don't believe there has been in that building but i, i i'm not sure in different state laws call out different kind of tenant protections. >> so so the question is you know it wouldn't be exempt from state rules because of its categorization locally as a resource or not or a category building. but if it's called out as a contributor to a district it could not. yeah, national register or a state district or a local district it could not take advantage of state ministerial laws that exist today. they can't propose demolition is the key thing here. so but would you be of value

weighting that demolition? >> how how would the department evaluate that an application to demolish the facade currently yes, it could be you know there could be a proposal that that proposes to demo that administratively i mean ministerial under state law because it's not currently listed in federal, state or local historical register. so keep in mind the new ministerial housing proposals the bulk of them tie this down to whether a building or area specific for a building is listed in not qualified for. >> right. right. it was in our article ten. so it's basically the distinction between a designate a building versus for example a building that was evaluated under sequa and found to be historic under that capacity.

and again that's why we think it's important we're undertaking a process internally where we're looking at ways throughout the city that could be vulnerable and commercial districts and you know that the hope is to put them into article 1011. so they have local protection because just in a doesn't necessarily protect you but there are a wide variety of ways within the city and part of that is kind of going through and looking at these and determining what should be listed locally which would protect them in those which we shouldn't list locally which then potentially you know they can avail themselves of state laws. >> okay. thank you. thank you commissioner doug swan did you have other questions that uh yeah so i just want to go through the comments quickly in terms of

the criterion ethnic heritage and italians and chinese and we have a context statement already that defines a lot of what the significance of this district is and if if it's you know required for the national register to have more a more robust explanation of that i, i i'm not sure that's the case. i would think that it relates whatever we're defining for italian and chinese culture has to relate to the significance of those properties or that district. so whatever description that's augmenting the national register nomination to should be related to specific properties as i understand it

whole as an entity and individual properties that are individually significant. so i would say you know i, i agree with it to the extent that it would make the case for the district to add more information and reference the chinese-american historic context statement and the previously written north or north beach context statement in terms of criterion a community planning and development i believe this is related to the 1906 earthquake and how it developed and there may be some correlation to the period of significance which is the next point and limiting it to 1906 to 1939 maybe more description would be needed for the latter or later periods for

the you know, beatnik and counterculture period in order to define that period of significance a little bit better and it doesn't have to go too far but i think it needs to have some uh, you know, stability in that area. um, i don't know that we need to uh consider i and it's been a while since i have looked at a national register nomination or that instructions for it but you know there was talk of having individual properties that were described in the report have their own period of significance and their own significance noted such as like property x would have categoric criteria and a and it's prairie to significance i think i think

in in their table they could put down criteria in a category and see just so that we're aware of the significance so that it relates to the history that they've defined in the period of significance section in individually significant properties. i believe they did talk about that in the nomination. um and uh you know just highlighting those individuals significant properties, existing historic districts you know uh planning department mentioned that those other districts are not mentioned but um i'm seeing them on the map so i'm not sure exactly how that where that disconnect is and in terms of integrity, uh

there's a couple of different things. >> one is you know the buildings that have been destroyed um, when when the exterior of a building and i haven't looked at the very building very recently so i don't know how intact it is but from what i what i hear in the comments is that the exterior isn't intact and the interior is burnt. so something about the exterior it has the character retains the character to define the significance of the district and if that's the case then um there should be an a closer evaluation of the points of integrity for that exterior facade so that um it's defined a little bit better for those properties that are questionable in terms of being destroyed or derelict. um and i think one of the things that would help that is we have a smattering of

photographs and the national register nomination for specific properties and i don't know miss petra and you can speak to this whether we have pictures uh photos for each of those each of the properties i think would read well and if the description and the photographs were um were arranged so that they would come after or in an appendix i'm not sure i forget how the sections work. um and then you have the index within the main body of the section i believe it's section 8 or 10. >> thanks for the comment. i'll just say that what you're describing i agree it would be nice to see individual photos but that is sort of way beyond what the national register requires and in fact they what we've already submitted is more

than what they require. that description of each individual property the architect the date of construction all of that is is quite a lot of information compared to what they usually require and i don't think that the office of historic preservation would accept a nomination with every single photograph of every contributing building. >> how many buildings would you say have been damaged in some way that you know to the to the extent of the verde building damaged to the extent of the very building? i think very buildings really in a category of it's its own. >> okay. yeah. and so and then the second question would be how many buildings have been altered to a degree that they may not retain integrity that was the basis of non contributor status and we determined that 90 of those buildings were non contributors based on integrity and then as far as the smaller

buildings and rare lots or moved buildings um there was a question in the staff uh reading of this whether some of those should be included. what was your i think there was just two buildings that we listed as moved and we listed them under a criterion be you have to disclose that and really just found two out of the 600 some odd correct okay yeah okay one was moved on the same lot site to the front of the building. okay. >> and then as far as of proposed district boundaries you describe quite well how you went from the you know evaluation from you know, 1980s early or late 70s through all these layers of of evaluation and walking with other historians and what are your

what's your feedback on what the planning department says as like the ones on the periphery being overlapped with other districts and whether they belong to the other districts and also the commissioner's comments on that. so we did define and the district the much smaller than the previous study area i think that was clear. >> there is not really so much overlap with other existing historic districts like jackson square. >> there's no overlap. what was the extension of the jackson that was a that's called the jackson square extension. >> i remember seeing that when it came to us but i'm seeing it included in it is included in this district and that was surveyed and defined in previous work dating back to the 1990s as a potential elegy. >> so now it's between but in both of them basically it was never designated as a standalone but was it an

extension of the jackson square historic district and now is a part of both it it would it be an it's an extension of jackson square but double check with nancy shanahan that my understanding is that the jackson square extension is not is it it's not previously adopted. it's not a district. >> it's it was part of the jackson square historic district. oh, it's not. yeah. so now you've incorporated it into the north beach. that's very historic discount. >> okay. could we just go back for a second? we talked about the photos for each individual contributing building as being maybe extraneous and the definition of significance and period of significance for each individual building. that's also not something that the national register requires

or would recognize. and i just wanted to mention that we really thought long and hard about the end date of the period of significance and they were chosen to include as much of north beach's history. that's how we ended up at 1965. the feeling is and the feedback we got from members of the community is that the community citywide would not exist and the lgbtq history wouldn't be the same if it hadn't been for the events that transpired in north beach and earliest date of any other neighborhood in the city. so that's how we got to 65 versus something like 39. and we also calculated the number of buildings that become contributors because they were built we didn't use 39. we used world war two, 1941 or something but between 41 and 65 it was there's an additional i

think it's fewer than 12 buildings that become contributors because of their construction date and i would you would you say that the the the lgbtq significance is reflected in the buildings in north beach or occurred in the buildings in north beach? >> i think both okay. and so that that you're included include and that's that's the same kind of distinction we would have in that context statement as well right to have yeah to have that embodied in in the in the significance period is significance and significance. okay so let's see i uh i'll let others apart because i think it's important that at the end

of this we summarize what we would want to augment or modify of the i think comments we would provide a resolution is this correct? >> mr.. i and with specific comments, yes. i believe you'd have to adopt a recommendation in the form of resolution and if you're making further recommendations outside of what staff has provided you then you would need to articulate that today. so included in the motion for the resolution. >> thank you commissioner rwigara excuse me a few questions. >> i think mostly for mr. shoukry. i'm assuming that within the proposed boundaries of the part of the district there are no parcels that are on the city's housing element that have been filed with the state. uh, i don't think we had done that analysis. we looked at the amount of parcels that include buildings

with two units or more so that would look at basically buildings that have some natural protections relative towards demolition because many of our local controls have basically prohibit you from demolishing buildings due to multiple units in them because they would be subject to rent control and so mr. ferguson's passing on mr. i own it's going to pass out an additional map and we can show it for the members of the public as well. >> but we looked at we did look at how many units were there existing so and we basically flagged the parcels that include two units or more and so the bulk of the district actually contains residential units with two units or more within them. so naturally they would not be subject to many of the kind of ministerial housing laws that would allow for easy demolition . >> okay. so thank you.

do you know if the the group that owns the verdi building now was the group that owned it at the time of the fire? it's uh i'm looking at the consultant. maybe a member of the public is the project sponsor. you could call up kate mcgee if you'd like. okay. could i please? yes. i believe they were. they were okay. thank you. and then my final question i think for you probably rich if you can answer it supervisor söder raised the question of whether we can ask the state to extend the deadline for comment . >> do you know if that's been done before if they're even open to that not i have not seen it in my experience with this so i've worked on national register nominations in my past life as a private consultant. i will note that there's continue the national register

does allow you to provide some of the information that you know we recommended in our reports and so you know for example relative to the photographs, the nomination includes 46 photographs in it and there is 700 and something resources and the national register guidance, for example asks you to provide a good representation of the buildings that are within it which is why we ask for this. i think you know i will say i think there was some discussion about a san francisco standard for districts relative towards what the state or the fed would basically require for you knowing that these nominations provide the basis for future kind of management of these districts. we we do tend to ask for more information because we know what happens when the information's too light within them and so getting more precise actually helps in the future both in terms of representing what is actually

in them. so for example, do the decision makers know what the buildings look like within the districts? can you get a good sense of what the districts criteria and character is if you don't have for example photographs of them ,so do 46, 42, 46 photographs allow you to represent 700 plus resources and give you a good sense of that? so so we do ask for that kind of material because we do find it's really helpful because understanding an author's recommendation i'm just i'm sorry excuse me but whoever's phone is going off could we silence that please? >> yeah. understanding an author's like assessment of when a building of what they were thinking when a building was nominated and what it actually looked like can provide an important historical record for basically managing change on that property for future. >> so i actually in one more it correct me if i'm wrong areas

on the national register automatically are entered on the california register. correct. so does that mean that this area if this becomes part of the national register all those buildings then would be given the same protection that we've been hoping we can get the california register to do to all our other city landmarks? correct. okay. thanks. thank you, commissioner moroney . okay. i'm mr. speaker. as part of the national application, is it a requirement that they provide the character defining features of the architecture for evaluation? it's not they the national register forms are a little different. they basically your main sections are two things which is a descriptor right? a written descriptor of all the

contributing and non contributing resources that's usually section seven of a nomination and the section eight is the statement of significance whereby you have to provide enough information to basically make the argument for why you think something is significant knowing that we have the four national register criterion that by which to guide us so you know as events be is for people or persons see is architecture design construction and then rd is information potential usually for for example for archeology. so that's generally how it's structured and and ms.. patron is right that they're usually fairly precise about what they're asking for in terms of what needs to be included, right? and in a specific nomination. thank you commissioner. >> right. yeah. just to clarify there there has

been the discussion and question of districts that overlap and i think that is i mean i think that is totally allowed, right? so i don't think there's there's any kind of issue with with districts that overlap you know be the you know they may be just the important significance would be related to each district and those separate designations so so i don't think that's a problem and then it wasn't clear if we were talking about all national registered districts amongst the ones that were the map that kind of shared the overlapping ones that i think we were talking about. >> but but i again don't think that that's a problem. but if there's any clarification on that would be

great to hear on the public record. >> commissioner waldorf you know, i just wanted to make one comment on just an observation on the date. one of the reasons that i would be very supportive in addition to the one that ms.. patron were made is one on design because i think that the design larry halpern's design of washington square park dates from the early 1960s and i think that the visual layout of that park is very much a amplification of north beaches history. i mean if you look at the old photographs of the park design before halprin and then after halprin north beach actually is very much evolved and i don't think you could look at the neighborhood now and think of it any other way than with halperin's park there. and i think that the recent

renovation of the park by the rec and park very much kept halpern's path and organization and everything and so i, i think it's appropriate to to recognize that continued history and not to be sort of advocating oh well we should go back to the park that had paths that crisscross through it in a more 19th century park design. so i think that there is a real logic to the 1960s date from a design as well as from a social point of view. >> so i, i just wanted to make that comment on the date. thank you commissioner agnes warren so i just want to suggest at this recommendation to amend the comments i also would like to make some adjustments.

i have no problem supporting this national registry nomination i do here words like honorific and courtesy and you know that it doesn't require the level that we have required at the local level but i think we're talking about a very big district as commissioner baroni pointed out and people rely on the information that is supplied to the national registry and i think that the recommendations that the staff made in terms of adding further documentation can only make this nomination stronger and i would like to support that. i am also concerned and maybe i understand that this went through a number of community processes to get to where it was for the historic context statement but i'm not sure if i've heard of community process

and we did receive public comment as well as the supervisors comments about not a lot of opportunity for people to comment on this particular agenda item or this particular national register. and i just wanted to ask staff if ms. ferguson you know it's kind of a backward way of the city note of being notified about this national register when were you as staff notified of this? i believe that we received the national register nomination after right after thanksgiving or right before thanksgiving. >> so i know there's not one way to do this but usually the local government is notified and involved very early on in the process or at least notified. >> is that correct? yeah, we've seen it in any number of capacity. sometimes a consultant will reach out with us and discuss what they're thinking in terms of it.

sometimes they don't and then submit. all right. on to the state. so we've seen both ways. >> i just think that there could have been better communication and so that we could definitely make sure that more community is informed about what is happening today about this particular nomination. i mean i have used national registry nominations to help support community and i believe that the more detail that's provided is only going to help make that nomination stronger. and i would just encourage that there be more communication with staff so that this commission can know more about what's happening regarding this . i'm done so these are suggestions uh, you know, recommendations for the commission to consider. the recommendation is to support the comments by

planning staff to the extent that they are applicable to the national register nomination application instructions we suggest that the sponsors provide responses to each comment to clarify what national register instructions require and which changes are intended to be made and suggest that public the public write to the state office of historic preservation and for ahead of the deadline on january 31st for the hearing on february third for the state historic resources commission apologies commissioner roxana that emotion. >> commissioner baldauf, did you have a i guess an amendment to that? no, i was had a question on

that. i think that in staff's comment there was a suggestion to study smaller districts and the like. >> are we saying that or are are we just leaving that up as part of the discussion that they are to have with the applicant? >> i, i think what ms.. petrine had presented and the background of how they they evolved to the boundaries of the district is pretty consequential and and looking at multiple layers of history from the time in the 1980s and looking at boundaries and walking it with multiple historians who are qualified it seems like they've they've come to a conclusion with that. but having said that, you know ,i don't know if you're thinking can you elaborate a

little bit i guess i'm do you want it in or out or i i'm i'm ambivalent at a certain level i i'm i, i also i have no problem with this size or scale or whatever it was just one of the points that was made and i just wanted to be sure whether we were saying engage with that point or we actually accept this boundary. i mean as as as you mean accept the recommendation of staff oh no. >> well the staff's recommendation is to dig in and dissect fact i think i, i i've heard us be talking about what has been proposed. >> i and i just want to know what we're saying in your comments. that's what i whether you're so so to include it or not.

>> yes that's my question correct so commissioner i think because there are all these nuances it's very difficult for us to get a set of comments that is so specific unless we go page by page. and so my what i'm sort of suggesting is recommendation to support the comments to the extent they are applicable to the national register nomination application because we are given this as a courtesy and then that we suggest the sponsors respond to each of the items that the planning department has had so that all of that goes to the state historic resources commission to be reviewed by them. i'm fine with that. >> but just to clarify, we're we're putting together a

resolution to support this. >> the staff's number one the the registry as well as the staff's comments except for that particular comment. i just want to make clear for the record that we're what? >> well yeah. yeah i i'd appreciate if we could just get yeah i'm no no i ,i mean because need to formulate some form of this this motion is to support uh the nomination of the national nominationo the state to the to the no no no to the state. >> right. because it's going to the commission and then we are also at the same time supporting the comments that staff has made. >> um, thank you for clarifying that. that's clear. commissioner right. did you have a yeah clarifying

comment or question or yeah thank you. >> yes until the points that we're we're actually i'm speaking about now and i think that to commissioner bork's question about the various kind of subdistricts i, i think that what miss patterson proposal laid out was that the north beach historic context statement that was that was completed had extended boundaries and that is the boundary by which and the contact statement is what laid out kind of the boundaries and the makeup of this district that is being presented to us now right? yeah. the the context the context i

thought it was in oh yeah yeah, yeah. >> but the context statement is bigger than what's being proposed now so but all of these kind of like kind of tangential areas or kind of like the ends and the edges of the areas that are included in this that were maybe questions about whether or not they should be separate subdistricts are included in this because they were they were included in the approved north beach historic context statement from a few years ago that the boundary of that is what forms none of this is outside of the boundary of the north beach historic context statement so did you want to add that as a comment to our motion or no? that's just a clarification i think for the discussion because the question was about various subdistricts and and whether or not to support that. >> and i think the the argument

is my my point is to leave it broad like we have like you had clarified to jonas and that commissioner in august warren was standing on as well because the boundary none of that extends past the boundary of what was defined in the historic context statement so so commissioners just as a point of clarification just so that way we get your resolution correct? right. it sounds like the commission's looking to adopt the staff recommendation minus the last bullet point which is called summary correct. >> that's my input. could you repeat that? so it looks like the commission your motion would be is to recommend comments along to the state historical resources commission endorse the significance of the district under criterion a and c adopt the bullet points listed in the executive summary except for

the last bullet point which is entitled summary in bold which is where we talk about smaller districts. >> well if i could continue sure i suggest sending it as is. you know i think there's no harm in the summary and the suggestion for that for the state historic resource commission to make their own decision because the recommendation with that right we are just recommending right so i mean i think it's yeah, i think we've sort of complicated matters unnecessarily. the motion that i understand you're trying to make is to forward a recommendation with staff's recommendation. >> correct period. >> correct. do i hear a motion on that? is there a motion? >> i'll make that motion. is there a second second thank you, commissioners. >> if there's no further deliberation there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt

the resolution with staff recommendations on that motion. commissioner moroney i mr. baldauf i mr. vergara yes commissioner right. yes. commissioner negus sworn yes and commission president masuda yes and we have commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 commissioners that will place this on the final item on your agenda to the commissioners. >> are you okay to continue forward or do we need a break? keep going all right, let's keep going. >> very good. item eight case number 2024 hyphen 007066 ian v for the property at 530 sansom and 447 battery streets this is for your review and comment. good afternoon commissioners jonathan rimmer department staff the item before you today is a request for review and comment regarding the preservation alternatives for the project roughly tied to 530 sansom and 447 battery street a previous iteration of the proposal that did not include

the 447 battery component was previously approved and for sequel purposes received a mitigated negative declaration when it came to historic resources. the only aspect requiring mitigation in that prior proposal pertain to removal and on site reinstallation of the artwork titled untitled that rests on the facade of the existing fire station at 530 sansom street as this component of the project remains effectively unchanged, the departments analysis is focused on the new aspect demolition and redevelopment of the 447 battery street site currently occupied by the jones the back coffee company building which is an individual resource for the purposes of sequa and also locally listed under article ten of the planning code the building is proposed for removal and replacement with a new fire station so basically all component was incorporating the fire station within a high rise there is still a large mixed use tower now the fire

station will be relocated on this 447 battery site that was subsequently acquired by the developer and we'll have a nice presentation that goes through all of this so as detailed in their memo, the project sponsor has listed the project's objectives the alternatives to demolition that were studied and the difficulties these alternatives present to achieve the project's goals as it pertains to demolition of 447 battery. >> as ever you are all welcome and encouraged to ask any questions you may have with the understanding that the core action today is review and comment on the sufficiency of the preservation alternatives in the lead up to the draft environmental impact report which will also be heard before this commission the project sponsor is in attendance with the detailed presentation so i'll conclude here in hopes of avoiding redundancy we are here and happy to answer any questions you may have to the best extent we can. >> thank you. thank you.

good afternoon sir. you have five minutes. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. thank you for your time today. i'm mark sweetman with skidmore, owings and merrill. we are the project's architects and if i could get the screen here thank you. so the area in yellow shows the project site. it's at the very northern edge of the financial district south of washington street between sansom and battery to the east is the garage component of one maritime plaza and to the west the block including the transamerica pyramid and two buildings high rise office buildings fronting sansom street. looking more closely at the project site the western end of the site is intended for mixed use tower the eastern end the fire station we're proposing extensive public realm improvements that are designed in concert and to harmonize with the work that's being done on the transamerica block including mark twain alley.

and the project includes a redesign of merchant street including matching landscape and streetscape widening of the curb on the north side to washington street as well as a lobby and retail uses fronting on both sansom and merchant closer look at the site plan shows the core for the high rise building at the left the service uses and bridge access for that building in the center and then the proposed fire station at 447 battery shaded and pink on the right with its vehicular access from merchant street just a couple of views of the overall project. this is the northwest corner showing the roughly a four story base of the mixed use tower with the tower above the hotel entrance on merchant street and finally the proposed fire station looking from one maritime plaza across sansom street across battery street rather to the west. >> so the majority of the discussion today is around the

alternatives looked at at 447 battery there is a table here showing five. i think the first two need no further discussion. the left is the proposed project which i just walked you through. >> the second is no project the middle is what was titled full preservation option a which is essentially the project which was previously approved several years ago. >> so this project is a smaller or different mixed use tower on the western end of the site which sat atop a new fire station did not include 447 battery for many reasons post-covid that project is no longer feasible. the use is proposed for that tower are no longer feasible as well as the complication of constructing the tower over the fire station so we'll jump into what's labeled for preservation option b here and this option attempts to build the fire station on the same parcels as

the the newly proposed mixed use tower. as you can see here the core of required fire elevators, life safety elevators and passenger elevators that building is significantly larger than the previous proposal making room for the fire station which cannot coexist with the core pushes that west and south somewhat leaving really no usable space to the west in the south this is a major challenge especially as you go up the building. almost two whole sides of the building are not usable for hotel rooms which is the use of the lower portion of the building. but that scheme would leave the force of a battery building untouched not part of the project that is not feasible for the reasons i just mentioned of the use of the tower, the ground floor and access. so we looked at another option which was to put the fire station at 447 battery and to preserve as much of the building as possible.

this is has its own challenges the structural bay of 447 battery has three rows of columns the fire stations absolutely requirements for four days of vehicles two of which are nearly the full depth of the building. they also have a clearance height requirement both for the doors and for the entry. >> so the result is that this proposal only maintains the facade of 447 battery on two sides. so the thick red lines there would indicate the facade the plan work on the interior is the fire stations program fit inside there these drawings the section on the right illustrates the clearance height the fire trucks are actually taller than the first floor of the building so we'd have to remove two floors. the doors are almost as tall as the windows on the second floor of the building so no brick could remain below them. the third floor partially overlaps with the windows. it is not in our opinion a very satisfying proposal to attempt to fit these fire vehicles and fire stations into the shell of

this building and on top of that it would have to be excavated underneath for the required parking and fire service and service areas for the firefighters. >> so that's the conclusion. we're happy to answer more questions and get into more details here but those are the alternatives that were studied and that's the project. >> thank you. thank you indeed. that should take us to public comment. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on these preservation alternatives. >> good afternoon commissioners. what are you learning from san francisco heritage? >> i'm encouraged that hotel and office use are again being considered as viable options economically downtown. that said, they don't seem to match the urgent need for affordable housing and while it seems some dollars are being proposed for affordable housing fund actually building

affordable housing would make for a much more compelling use of this site when you're considering possible demolition of an article ten landmark san francisco heritage would of course advocate and will advocate in the d.r. for the full preservation alternatives 4447 battery and we might be willing to talk with the project sponsors and how the partial preservation alternative could be an option. so we look forward to more discussion on this. i look forward to hearing your comments on this and thank you for your time. >> thank you. last call for public comment and then you need to come forward seeing none. >> public comment is closed and this matters now before you commissioners. thank you. just a second. okay. commissioners difficult one. >> commissioner baroni, i have a question for the sponsor.

>> is knowing that the existing building is a masonry structure is it feasible to achieve the performance criteria required of a social services facility such as a fire department? >> so i should i should clarify the use of the term feasible? i think many things are feasible when i speak about feasibility i'm probably referring to does it meet the goals of the project and is it reasonable the masonry would have no ability to contribute to any useful aspect of the building other than keeping water and wind out on two sides. so preserving the masonry would be done solely for the historic or esthetic purposes and essentially a new building would be constructed inside and below it with a concrete reinforced concrete frame that would meet the requirements of an essential services facility

as well as all of the life safety systems associated with that stairs mechanical foundations and the vehicle base themselves. >> yeah. commissioner, just to provide background. so remember as in your review of the preservation alternatives the goal of the preservation alternatives when we're looking at environmental impact reports is to basically offset the impact on a historical resource. so for example in their case since the project is proposing demolition of a historic resource, they have to the project sponsor has to explore a feasible range of alternatives that basically keeps the historic resource as part of it. and so this is part of our we're kind of required review under sequa and when we're conducting an air commission baldauf yes, i would like to sort of understand the process of if in fact the city wants to

go ahead with this project as designed. and we are demolishing a landmark. >> what is the process do? does the landmark get delisted? what is the process by which we demolish a landmark? >> we have staff to provide some clarity. >> i will take the first half of this and the answer is really we are going to effectively create the process if if this is to proceed. >> there is no the only instance where an article ten property has been the formal term was designated was in the 1990s. there is a church at golf in eddy street that burned down and in order to relax kind of development opportunities on that site the deed designated it that's the only instance

we're aware of where an article ten site has been changed not article ten. >> so in terms of how this is going to work for this proposal that is still being worked on mostly through people that are not the planning department staff we would never really i don't think there's an appetite by the sponsor or planning department to bring a certificate of appropriateness to demolish an existing landmark. there's no way that we would ever create finance to do that . so there needs to be some other legal legal mechanism that's still being worked out that is also separate from secure. this property will always be a resource under secure that is not changing. we are preparing in the air in light of that fact the article ten as a local issue is still being worked out and is not something that really i or rich am active on. >> yeah can i can i follow up then rich with an observation. thank you jonathan.

>> i feel personally that it's very important that this commission be involved in any decertify fication or whatever occurs here because if our task is to recommend landmark to the board of supervisors i feel that it is only appropriate and i think we're regardless of the merits of this project in particular this is establishing a very, very dicey precedent. >> correct. and and i so i that's why i'm asking this question first because i have some specific comments about the project but it feels like a project hurtling down the tracks with political support and the like and and i, i personally i'm ambivalent about this landmark

mark as a landmark even as a landmark. >> so but it is a landmark and we are tasked with upholding landmarks and so i don't know how i mean i feel like this is like multiple issues on the table right now and so i just want to hit this one front and center because if a landmark is going to go away and i sort of feel like even all of the studies aren't even i mean are so drastic that they're basically destroying the landmark so unless you don't do that unless you do the no project version and and so i don't know can you talk to us a little bit about what's going on in the what mr. rimmer says outside of your purview but sure i'm happy to give some insight but i'll defer to deputy city attorney andre always the to kind of set the framework for us here.

>> good afternoon commissioners andrea saskia deputy city attorney you have authority under the charter and under article ten to list properties as landmarks and to such to recommend to the board of supervisors that they do and you also have authority to recommend that they don't. so i guess there would be an effort to pass another ordinance. landmarks are created by ordinance so if the board were to consider another ordinance in which it would be list the property you will be part of that process to in the process of recommending to the board or not recommending to the board the board can act even if it has a negative recommendation on your part the board could act the water supervisor so that would be the process and and you would enter the charter you would have that authority. so rest assured commissioner, like at some point when we work with the city attorney to

figure out what this process is, you'll probably see this project again and i do want to remind you that your current commentary for the item before you is about the air and the preservation alternatives themselves. the aspects of the project are not necessarily before you but it's about the adequacy of the alternatives that the staff has presented. so at a future date you will actually have opportunity to review the air itself. but the goal of that review of the air is whether or not the department adequately undertook the environmental review under the california environmental quality act. >> but we have the opportunity today to provide comment or two to recommend for example a no project. >> is that correct? it's you're not necessarily recommending one specific alternative or not that would be the next hearing. >> i see this is more did we

explore a reasonable a reasonable and feasible range of alternatives in looking at alternatives to. >> okay. okay. thank you. thank you for that clarification. can i finish then my mike my what the my specific comment on the alternatives and the previous project was approved before my time but i would have thought there would have been an alternative explore and that still demolishes the landmark but preserves the firehouse that currently exists if you're in fact going to study all the options on the table because the firehouse that exists is holds a landmark sculpture that is actually supposed to be put back on the new firehouse. i don't see it in any of these design renderings and i know

that that it was decided that it was not a landmark but it was designed by an architect of distinction john portman and i i in a in a scheme of this magnitude and you change something at the end of the day which is to buy a landmark building and change everything around i sort of i'm surprised that that wasn't looked at. >> so that's just my $0.02 thank you for those comments, commissioner. i would just like to brief jonathan i'd just like to briefly note the sculpture while you're correct it's not on the initial set of plans is absolutely going to be retained that is that it's noted in the document and it is going to be something that is further developed as design development progresses but it is going to be retained and located in a

publicly accessible space potentially a facade, potentially a lobby that is yet to be fully determined as this thing moves forward. but in the previous approval there were mitigation measures specifically around relocating that and those will kind of continue through. >> so there was deemed to be no impact to historic resources in the previous iteration as that sculpture was going to be fully preserved as an object and retained with relation to a fire station which is kind of what objects object significance in for the national park service are tied to location and relation and it's a sculpture of firemen and in terms of the existing fire station we did find it to be contributory to a potential embarcadero center historic district but did not find it to be an individual resource for that for the reasons outlined in the document. yeah, yeah i understand all of

that and so i would only note that i was having an interesting conversation with arts commission staff earlier today. on another matter and we were talking about the sculpture there and her initial response was that it actually has to be on the facade now maybe it doesn't but i mean i think how that sculpture appears or is on the graphic quality of the facades important and i would just i mean, you know, i, i know this year at sort of very preliminary level i'm just making a point that this is a very complicated project and you're you're going to ask a commission to delist the landmark. >> i mean i this is a big, big deal in my opinion to the point of untitled. we absolutely intend to find

the appropriate place on the facade of the building for it so that it's visible from the public way. i think we welcome input from the commission, the arts commission and this commission on that. >> it likely i think is more appropriate on the fire station rather than the tower which may be in the same location as the current fire station. but we are completely open to that discussion and it i think can be well accommodated and you know, given the the interest that it deserves. >> thank you. thank you, commissioner. >> right. yeah i just had a question was and i'm not sure about this but are there is there or is there a district it's made up or i think there might be a contact statement and i for firehouses in san francisco and does was

that evaluated we we do have a mid-century firehouse study that was basically undertaken an individual study was undertaken for this specific property as part of the environmental analysis for this project which assessed it as obviously not to be individually significant but to be a contributor as part of this district and a contributor to to the embarcadero the potential embarcadero center historic district, right. >> that's correct. so we did also look at the context i mean you just mentioned commissioner but yes, it was deemed to be contributory to embarcadero center historic district. it has a very interesting history where embarcadero center three specifically was demolishing an existing fire station and they needed to quickly figure out a site for a new one within that general area of the city which is this continuing legacy of having one in this exact block.

>> but they john portman who was working on embarcadero center just came up with this design. they put it together quite quickly and it was established as part of the overall development of the embarcadero center even though it is like a few blocks away from the western edge of the center it was very directly tied to its creation and is architecturally related to it as well. you know and so i guess by extension of that just like i didn't know if if this fire station was also evaluated relative to a fire station district or potential fire station district in this case, this as i understand this fire station wasn't built as part of a larger bond measure or something that basically strung together a continuum of of firehouses. so like the mid-century ones came as a result of a 1950s

bond measure and so the city took a like purposeful l purposeful like investment in firehouses throughout the city hence why they also have the same kind of architectural character throughout this one was built as a one off so it doesn't have the same kind of history. the association yeah thank you. that's that's helpful. >> commissioner nargis warren what is the process for once you know we have these alternatives and it goes to the air process who and how do does that how does a developer choose which option they're going to do or is that part of the air? >> i will have a principal planner, joy navarette come up and she can explain the larger environmental process just to make sure i'm being precise here.

>> join averett planning staff yes, the process going forward would be as environmental planning putting these alternatives into the draft are to be circulated for 45 or 60 days. >> then we will come back to the planning. hpc to review your comments on that draft for among other you know, the public comments and finally the the it's the decision makers that decide which project is approved and that would ultimately be with the planning commission and and you know the proposal is you know the proposed project is what this sponsors are proposing but the planning commission the decision makers can choose an alternative but they have to put you know, we have to prepare findings and if

they do choose the proposed project we would have to do overrides and significant impacts and in this case it would be historic resources. >> is that answer your question? yes. yes. thank you. thank you. >> commissioner blo the one quen that i would have is it feels like we're looking at demolishing a landmark to put a city fire station in its place . is there another parcel of land that should be an alternative in the neighborhood that is doesn't have a landmark building occupying it that should be being looked at as a site joint ever everett from planning staff when we do look

at alternative sites for a proposed project that site has to be controlled by the proposed find any off site sites that were available or that were owned specifically by this developer. >> we've done that in the past for other projects when like it's a city project and we have other sites that we can propose alternatives on but for for this fire station i don't believe there was an alternative site available but i guess i'm this is where i get confused. >> i mean this is a city project. i mean you are selling a city building and i don't know if that's already been sold to the developer but there's a the city is a stakeholder in this deal. i think that the dia is would that's a developer agreement issue. i think this site would be

gifted to the city after development. yeah so in this case the private the project sponsor is a private owner so you know the rules for looking at alternatives would mandate that we look at what the owner currently possesses to basically determine if alternate sites were available but again i'm i find this very complicated because you have an approved project with the developer that included this city parcel they were going to on the land they were going to put the new fire station. they've obviously figured out it makes more sense to buy another parcel and they bought the other parcel to put the fire station on it and that happens to be a landmark and it feels a little bit complicated when there could have been a i think a reasonable alternative

if we're asking about have we turned over the reasonable alternatives would be to ask the city as well as the developer. i mean you're going to come to us and say historic preservation commission forget about that landmark. i mean i think you're asking a lot of us and i don't know that i feel like the homework's been done in this case. >> commissioner baldauf i think it's something to remember particularly with sequoia itself. sequoia is ultimately about disclosure, right? so it is an environmental law that obviously california has had for a while. it is about trying to identify impacts and do your best attempt at mitigating them and part of the rules of sequoia is also to not have it be so expansive because if you add the ifs and ands and buts it then becomes unwieldy for the sponsor to kind of come up with

a range that looks at this and in particular so we do have to kind of rely on what is submitted to us at the time and what's in the current possession of the sponsor and then basically deal with the impacts particularly on the specific site. so we don't typically factor in other things beyond the boundaries of the project site that have been identified for us unless they contain ownership of that in the future and if i might join our staff and we can add that homework in the in the section considered and rejected alternatives we can put in a discussion as to why we don't have an alternative site for the fire station. >> oh i think that would be important at a minimum. >> commissioner rwigara this is

probably going to just sound simplistic but it seems that we've debated in the past whether something should be declared a landmark or not and in one case a landmark was destroyed by act of god. so after the fact we decertified it. but it just seems to me that once something has been declared a landmark, it's our job to make sure that we do everything we can to protect it and not even think about to keep it decertifying it. yeah, well, commissioner course i think we have to give staff some kind of guidance here. i mean i think we are all concerned about this particular landmark. we are very concerned about decertifying a landmark property. i'm concerned in this climate

that should we as commissioner baldauf said, start to decertify any one particular landmark property that it might set precedents for others to follow. >> and that's something that i believe this commission does not want to do and i'm not hearing from the commissioners that they're really feeling it for these preservation alternatives. and commissioner, i guess warren has a comment. i remember just the sponsor saying something about not being able to go over the historic building. >> is that correct? did i hear that as a as a or i'm happy to clarify within which alternative were you referring to? >> well, i'm trying to think of

another alternative to be able to cantilever over the historic buildings so you have the ability to go up. you had mentioned that because the historic building is there you can't have rooms on that side. >> so the the issue with the fire station itself is actually at great really because the fire trucks come in from the street and they take a certain amount of space so the incompatibility or the lack of ability to achieve the objectives at 447 battery is due to the scale of the structure of that building and the scale of the openings of the facade and the height of the second floor. >> the height of the second floor is actually lower than the fire truck right? so it's just really difficult as far as cantilevered over it that is possible.

it is again very challenging because the requirement for a fire station and essential services facility is a higher structural importance factor. any interaction between those structures essentially triggers those requirements up through the tower unless they're dependently isolated, separated from it has to be seismically completely separated. >> so it's equivalent to base isolation. it's very, very, very complicated and in fact the issue that was causing what i describe as the core to take away space from the tower above you can't cantilever the core over the fire station bays because the core is full of elevators and they have to come down to the ground. they don't go sideways. so i would agree with you that you know, anything is possible but not reasonable in this case in any we tried very hard to think of all the possibilities. of course we can't consider sites we don't control but we do think the alternatives

represented the best effort that we in the city could make at mitigating what the impacts of the project were. >> yeah i was just going to stress that commissioners like keep in mind like the exercise before you again and i say exercise because that's what we're in right now is we're in an analysis mode of looking at what alternatives to demolishing the building, right? so inherently the charge for the architect is to basically try and take as much program as they currently have in the main project and try and basically keep the building and then fit as much of that into the new site that they can and that's basically what sequoia is asking them to do at this key. the obviously what i'm hearing from a lot of the commissioners is issues with the project itself and that i, i know it's hard to do this it's hard to bifurcate the issues with the project versus whether or not the staff undertook the process

in the analysis correctly. >> well, there's two two alternatives that were suggested. one was commissioner bald office using a different site and the second was mind whether we could cantilever over as options for this and we're trying to get feedback from from them. >> um yeah the simplest answer would be that you cannot cantilever the elevators and other elements of the building core over the fire station. >> why would you why can't you use other part of the building to do the core. well that's what we did actually we we pushed the core out of the way of the fire station. it is literally within ten feet of the width of the entire remaining site from the fire trucks to the street. so by pushing it over we basically and it doesn't give you any benefit to cantilever over the building. well, actually the alternative study does cantilever the hotel rooms and the office space over the fire station.

it simply can't you simply can't move an elevator horizontally. that's all right. >> okay. thank you. thank you. commissioner baldauf, i guess i just what i don't understand is why you can't put your core in the landmark building and build hotel rooms and office above the landmark building and bridge over a mid-block fire station because the mid-block fire station was the original concept before the landmark building was even proposed. >> commissioners my name is matt witty i'm the sponsor. i'm with the group that is sponsoring this project one of you or maybe celery.

several of you have commented on the complexity of this and you're exactly right it is a very complex project. the only reason we're here is that the project we spent four years and a lot of money designing doesn't work otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation that project did actually have a hotel only a hotel cantilevered over a new fire station on washington street. essentially what you're asking i'm not telling you anything you don't already know about the situation with the hospital building industry in san francisco today. so optional is we just walk away and the city doesn't get what they were hoping to get out of the project that the fire department lives with its existing fire station and we all go about our lives and that is absolutely an option that the planning commission and the board of supervisors will eventually get a chance to vote on. so let's put that over here. the reason we're here is we didn't walk away and we went

back to the city and we said is there a way to actually make this project happen? at the time we conceived the first project, the building that we're talking about here today 447 was owned by an individual who wasn't interested in selling it that in that individual lost that building through foreclosure and the lender who came to own the building contacted us as we were reimagining the possible city of a bigger project here that might make it feasible and asked us if we would consider potentially buying that building. so in thinking about whether that could work, we went through all these different alternatives, some of which you're reviewing today. is there some other physical way to make the program that makes the building or a combination of uses in the building financially feasible? and we concluded that the only way to do that was to have a standalone fire station that met the functional and seismic requirements of a fire station in today's world which i will say is very precise and non

negotiable for the most part with the fire department. so so we're not here telling the fire department what they couldn't live with. it's the other way around now now you have a separate issue and that's your issue and we're we're hopeful for your ultimate support. but what i can tell you is this fire station 13 that's the number serves the financial district and the north waterfront of san francisco. and as you might well imagine, there are very, very few parcels anywhere in the north waterfront that are not already built out. so as part of our analysis before we propose what's before you we surveyed the entire area that was in a radius acceptable to the fire department. that was in fact the first fundamental question operationally where could this station go if not where it is today? and unfortunately it's not just a matter of do we control the sites. >> there just aren't any other sites. a fire station is of a certain dimension determined by the

equipment and their programmatic requirements. so it turned out that 447 battery does in fact accommodate it barely but it does accommodate it functionally so the fire department is fine operationally with that location in terms of ingress and egress and also in terms of the functional components of the building, which is why we're here before you today. at the end of the day, if it's determined that the only way that this project can go forward is what's before you, we hope we'll have your support and if we don't i guess it'll be up to the elected officials to determine whether this is important enough for the city to have. but i can tell you that we didn't casually choose to try to delist a building. that's not what this was about . thank you. thank you. those are important comments, commissioner. right. yeah. i think this in a question about whether or not this was

considered and this may be what the previous plan was that i don't i'm not very familiar with but what was was there consideration of using the brick building as kind of the entrance to the hotel and a core in the back of that that would extend up through the tower and then the what i think is the sansom street side retain that as a fire station with with the the tower over it yeah it's an interesting idea the reality is that the core of a high rise building serves the elevators and also a significant part of the building's lateral structure. >> it generally needs to be located kind of close to the center of the center of the taller part of the building. not exactly. it can be off to the side a little bit actually as it is. but the idea that the function of that building the offices and the hotel rooms could be

all the way to the west and the core could be practically completely detached at the 447 battery side i, i think it stretches the limits of feasibility. frankly it probably could be built. it would certainly require a whole secondary lateral seismic structure on the other side and of course you'd be entering 150ft away from where the actual space that you're using on site. i don't think that that would meet most of the objectives. >> i'm sure it physically could fit. yeah. i guess the example that comes to mind is the west and saint francis where the elevators are in the union square side of the tower serving the tower at the back of the historic lobby and historic building. >> so it's just since we're discussing whether or not you know, the range of of alternatives have been considered, i wondered if that had been yeah, the differences the building you're speaking of

and this is not uncommon is it's rectangular and the elevators are on the long side of it which is the east side so they're kind of on the edge of the two. well we have here we have a rectangular site for 530 sansom and a kind of a square site for 447 that's only connected by the short little piece and so it's like off to the side i'm not even sure it would all fit actually in that little piece. there are separation requirements from the neighboring building to the north as well and so i we didn't specifically draw that out. i don't think it would work in this case. >> okay. i guess just adding it to the list of things that alternatives that may or may not work but should be checked off as not working appropriate to add that to the text discussion of alternatives considered but rejected.

>> we should note for an eye on the partial preservation alternative is there a version that could raise the historic building facade up to give the height and allow for the the facade to be intact but just raised up? i think that might result in in a statically better result on the two sides that could be retained. it wouldn't change the fact of excavating under the building and the column structure not being aligned with the number of bays required and i mean i personally don't know that it meets the preservation objective to put fake fake old facade under it to lift it up you know 4 or 5 would it be fake all the facade it would be a concrete base of some sort that would show that it was differenti had it from the

upper facade but i think that would probably but i see your point that it doesn't meet the the opening requirements that you're talking about. >> yeah i think it would be instead of having theteel framing on the east side that sort of picks up the windows instead you would have a concrete base. >> i think in the end the result would be probably somewhat similar to the impacts identified in that last alternative but probably possible. >> yeah. commissioners, if i may i'm just want to remind you gently that you're charged with determination of whether or not the preservation alternatives are adequate that are presented to you. >> that's what we're assessing ,right? >> um, as you know, i feel like i feel like we've asked some of these questions of other alternatives that could be possible. um, and it sounds like they've addressed that and where they where we've suggested some

things are going to add to the alternatives that have been considered but rejected is everyone satisfied with that? i mean i it is i i excuse me i guess and my question to that is i don't know what they're going to do with the suggested alternatives that we're saying have or have not been studied or my my be additional things worth considering until they look at it more. but is that the point right now to just list it and then they go back and decide how they want to incorporate it into the environmental review and decide whether or not it's feasible or not. and as you know, whatever preservation partial

preservation alternative be or whatever i don't know. but i think the point is just to to kind of discuss the anything that we think might be missing or might maybe should have been considered and maybe it wasn't it wasn't clear to us . >> that is correct. we are taking notes on the suggestions that you've given us today and we'll play the tape back to make sure we've covered everything in our draft. your thank you for that clarification, commissioner nungesser. >> warren and i, i was looking at the project objectives and how each one of them relates to what is being met for the each alternative. and it does appear that with the full preservation as an alternative a and b and the partial turn ative that many of the criteria are met. um and that's that's a positive um and so and if i'm not sure

how how we would do are we just doing recommendations or do we need to do a motion just recommendations correct there's it's just a free review and comment as the environmental as joyce said they're going to record your comments and transmit them and draft your are there any other questions or comments or additions that you want to add to the comments that will be made or the recommendations that we're this project? t the so i believe we have no further comments from the commission. >> very good. if there's nothing further commissioners, that concludes

your hearing today. >> thank you

cisco port commissions for january 14 2025 roll call president kimberly brandon here vice president gail gilman president commissioner willie adams here commissioners stephen and bloom here and commissioner stephen lee here item two is approval of minutes for the december 10th, 2024 port commission meeting so as we have a motion and a second all in favor by any opposed all in favor by any opposed motion