Skip to main content

tv   Historic Preservation Commission 12716  SFGTV  December 30, 2016 6:00pm-8:01pm PST

6:00 pm
>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission for wednesday, december 7, 2016. i would like to remind the audience that we do not tolerate any outburst at this time. i would like to take roll. commissioner wolfram, commissioner hyland, commissioner johnck,
6:01 pm
commissioner john's, commissioner matsuda, commissioner pearlman. >> here. >> 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. we have one speaker card. for general public comment. public speaker: richard carrillo with the program. you were asking about him. he was an advisor for the san francisco small business development center. spdc san francisco is hosted by the city and county of san francisco by the office of economic and workforce development. and they are housed in room 110 with the office of small business. to
6:02 pm
answer your question further we do at the legacy program work with sbdc and send a lot of business to them. that's the information i wanted to bring to you today. >> all right. thank you, does any other member of the public wish to public speaker: on a non-agenda item. please come forward. public speaker: good afternoon staff. my name is jennifer fisher and we represent sjs development company. the property locates on 152325-franklin street. as you know the law office sent you a letter. and for your convenience i brought copies of that letter and provided them to the commission secretary who has distributed them to each of you. the building at 2315-franklin street was identified for lgbtq history in
6:03 pm
san francisco as potentially eligible for city landmark status but it was not formally evaluated. as designated this building as historical resource is not appropriate. only because it houses because it's houses the institute for advanced studies and this offers courses in human sexuality. nor was it the first that offers courses in human sexuality. in fact other institutions like san francisco state university and san francisco city college have offered these courses since the 1960s. and also like their tennants, they do not have significant ties to
6:04 pm
the lgbtq movement. in fact it's only mentioned in a brief historic content and only because it's in association with other organizations. the building was one of over 50 potentially eligible buildings identified in the historic context statement. unlike the building of 1523-franklin, other buildings that were identified were done so because of their exclusive association with the lgbtq and the city. identified in the context statement is the society for individual rights community center located at 83 sixth street which was home to the first community gay center in the country and the corner stone of the lgbtq political and civic movement. the institute has no such connection to the lgbtq movement. i ask that this commission request your staff to review our letter and the supporting documents and to schedule a public hearing
6:05 pm
before the commission on this matter in january 2017. at the january 2017 hearing, we request that the commission discuss the limitation of 1523-franklin from the list of properties that maybe eligible from historic designation. thank you very much for your time and consideration. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to speak at this time? seeing none, we will close public comment. >> commissioners, this puts you under item 1. directors announcements. item 2, review of past events at the planning commission, staff report and announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners, no report for you this afternoon. >>clerk: commission matters item no. 3. >> i do have a n an
6:06 pm
announcement. we are going to have a gathering on the 21. we were going to have a gathering as a recommended designation at 5:00. a notice will be september -- sent out to commissioners and posted as a public matter. the second item i am putting forth a nomination for two landmark trees. any of us as commissioners, historic preservation commissioners are able to do and we are not required to hold a hearing on this item, but i will tell you what they are. one is a california buckeye located on mcallister street. it's in front of a really charming farm house structure very
6:07 pm
close to the center. and the next one is in front of 76 vallejo street on the property line with the birdhouse which is san francisco landmark 31. just for your information. i will keep you posted on the process. this is the first time that we have done it and i'm not sure how it will go. >>clerk: very good. if there is nothing further, commissioners, item for consideration of adoption draft minutes for arc meeting for september 21, 2016, september 21, 2016, november 2, 2016, and november 16, 2016. >> commissioners, do we take
6:08 pm
public comment? >> at this time we'll take public comment on the draft minutes listed. hearing no public comment, we will close public comment. can i get a motion to adopt the minutes. >> i move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> >>clerk: on the motion to accept the minutes. commissioner john's, commissioners hyland, commissioner johnck, commissioner wolfram? that motion passes. now item 5. commission comments and questions. >> i have in my notes to ask about the planning commission adoption of guidelines. did i miss something? >> can i ask you to speak into the
6:09 pm
microphone so they can pick you up. >> we are sharing today. all right. >> commissioners john again, we have an award for a number of months, more than a year to draft urban design guidelines to scale across the city. they are still under way. we have another public meeting on topic monday evening. those are not yet adopted. i don't believe there is a date yet for the adoption, but we hope they can be adopted in the first half of next year. we are happy to have staff come to you and present those as well if that makes sense. >> i would be interested. >> there is intent to speak on this and there is a guideline that they are working on. these are citywide guidelines for large scale development. >> the historic guidelines will work in concert with the urban
6:10 pm
design guidelines. they are still in draft form. we anticipate that i believe by february we will have a working draft to share with the public and start the process and the public engagement process similar to the udg's, but we are happy to bring both documents to you in more of an informal hearing. i don't know if the full commission would want to hear that or just for the drc, but we'll do either. >> she wants to hear it. >> i did a 10-day arc. i would be interested in that, would you all? >> i think a brief hearing would be important. thank you for your indulgence. >> any other comments or questions? >> no, we are ready to move on. >> commissioners, that places you under the consent calendar. they are considered to be routine by the historic preservation commission and maybe acted upon by a
6:11 pm
single role call. there will be no single discussion unless the matter is requested to be removed from the calendar and heard here or any future hearing. >> i have no speaker cards. >> does anyone commissioner wish to pull these items from consent? does any member wish to pull this from consent? >> seeing none. can i get a motion to adopt. >> i move to adopt the consent calendar, >> second. >> >>clerk: commissioner john's, commissioner wolfram and
6:12 pm
commissioner hyland, that places you on the regular calendar. we have been requested to pull item 12 and hear it now. >> okay. >>clerk: item 12. 12. 2014-000362env (c. fordham: (415) 575-9071) 1500-1580 mission street north side of mission street between south van ness avenue to the west and 11th street to the east; lots 002,003 in assessor's block 3506 12. 2014-000362env (c. fordham: (415) 575-9071) 1500-1580 mission street north side of mission street between south van ness avenue to the west and 11th street to the east; lots 002,003 in assessor's block 3506 (district 6) >> this is a draft environmental impact report. please note that this is intended to have the commission understand the draft of the report. comments may not be responded to in the final eir. the planning commission will be held on december 15th. 2016. the comments will be heard on january 14th. >> would you mind handing this to the commissioners?
6:13 pm
>> good afternoon, president wolfram and members of the commission. my name is chelsey, planning department staff eir coordinator. joining me are my colleagues historic preservation specialist and tina tam preservation planner. the members of the eir and members of the sponsor team are also present. the item before you are to view and comment on the draft impact report or draft eir for the environmental quality act and ceqa. specifically chapter 31 of san francisco administrative code was amended in 2013 and require the planning department schedule a notice of public meetings and obtain comments
6:14 pm
on the historic preservation commission may have on the draft eir for a project containing a resource that the environmental review officer deems based on evidence. the issue of the eir draft will continue until january 14th. a selection of the draft eir part two prepared by architectural resources group, dated june 2016, and the historic resources evaluation response prepared by the san francisco planning department david joou, 2016. the commission secretary has just distributed a handout which i will refer to later. copies of this handout are also available on the table to the
6:15 pm
left. today, we are to provide an opportunity for the commission to hear public testimony to discuss the historic resource issues pertaining to the project and to formulate any comments you may wish to submit to the environmental review officer on the draft eir, now i would like to provide a brief summary with regard to the eir with regard to historical resources. the site currently contains two buildings. the proposed project includes demolition of a building, and partial demolition and a construction of a mixed use on three components, a tall residential building on mission street and approximately 250-foot tall office and permanent center building for the
6:16 pm
city and county of san francisco on 11th street between market and mission streets. the existing retail building located at 1580 mission was constructed in 1997, and is less than 45 years of age and therefore not considered an historical resource. the existing warehouse building at 1500 mission was constructed in 1925 for the white motor company and renovated in 1941 for the coca-cola bottling plant. the warehouse located at 1500 mission was determined individually eligible for registering as eligible for historical places and for the purpose of ceqa. the building in 1941 when it was remodeled for continued use.. the building is considered eligible for
6:17 pm
california historical places under the criterion architecture. the project site is not located within any historic district. the draft eir concluded that the proposed project would result in a project level significant and unvoidable impact due to the project's impact to the 1500 mission street building which is individually eligible under the california register of historic places. this impact was determined to have a substantial adverse change of the significance of the 1500 mission building due to the following facts: the project would result of the removal of the resulting 90% of the mission building, and the project would result of removal of interior and exterior character defining features and
6:18 pm
including the ethical arrangement of the pattern along mission street. three mitigation measures have been identified for the significant and unvoidable impact of the historical resources. the first measure requires the sponsor takes measurement of the historic building and photography and historical report. the second requires video degradation to be taken by a professional videographer to document the historic settings. the third requires a sponsor to provide permanent delay of materials concerning the history and architecture features and the use as a coca-cola bottle making facility.
6:19 pm
the proposed demolition would remain significant and unvoidable. the draft eir issued two additional alternatives to the project, including a no project alternative, a full preservation alternative, a partial preservation and all residential alternative. the two preservational alternatives of the historic review committee of the historical commission at the november 2015 arc hearing. committee members provided feedback on the preliminary provisionary proposed at the time. the comments were that the alternatives could lose more of the warehouse building to meet more programmatic objectives as long as the facade was retained. the alternative needed to study reuse of the 1500 mission street
6:20 pm
building for the new center for the city and county of san francisco. arc feedback was incorporated into revised set of alternatives which you have in the draft eir before you. the full project would avoid significant impacts to historic resources. the partial preservation alternative would not avoid significant impacts related to demolition, however it would improve the impact to the project. earlier i mentioned a handout before you that includes and eir that provides a summary of the proposed project before the four alternatives. the second pages compares the characteristics and presents depictions and including heights and the results by each alternatives, the third is the impact for each
6:21 pm
of the three alternatives. before i conclude, i want to remind you that a public hearing for the eir is set up to go before the planning commission. comments must be submitted orally or you can submit your comments in writing to the environmental review officer by january, 14. otherwise comments will not be reviewed. after the planning commission hearing, they will respond and will contain all the comments on the draft eir. we retain it early spring early next year following certification of spring 2017. this ends my presentation. staff is available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners,
6:22 pm
any questions for staff. you want to take public comment? >> yeah, i have a question about what is it that we are doing today in terms of our comments? >> we are providing comments today to the planning department on the adequacy of the eir and whether it was done appropriately and the terms are adequate. >> okay. so, at this time i will take public comment on this item. any member of the public wishing to speak, please come forward. public speaker: good afternoon commissioners, mike bueller with san francisco heritage. heritage reviewed this project originally about a year 1/2 ago. our issues committee saw an early vision of of this project and comments on the notice of the preparation. we saw a revised project again last week and that presentation is in part
6:23 pm
of my comments today. i should note that in our comments on the nop we did focus on the symbolic importance of this project as the future headquarters of various city departments including the planning department. we noted in our letter that heritage is concerned that if the facade redemption is adopted for solutions of the department and planning and building and public works for security code and practice the following resources will be compromised. the revising project before you today, the preferred alternative has improved into important ways in our original comments we asked that there be an increased setback off mission street to allow more room for the clock tower and also ask for greater retention of 11 street elevation. nonetheless as you just heard, the alternative still results in demolition of 90%
6:24 pm
of the building. our comments also requested that at least one preservation alternative that would maintain the eligibility of the historic resource as you heard there are two alternatives to retain the gold building. the alternatives to the environmentally superior alternative stating that it would meet most of the sponsor objectives and while retaining the cultural impact. for that reason, we intend to comment on the eir. our strong preference is the full preservation alternative. we see an opportunity to transform this project into a quality preservation project through the retention of the goodwill building while meeting most of the
6:25 pm
sponsors objectives. thank you. >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. do we have comments? commissioner johnck? >> i would be interested in hearing the members of the arc comment on the comments that you made and how they fit the full preservational target. do they because i would be interested in the full preservation alternative. >> i wanted to agree with mr. bueller's evaluation. i think they have come, if i'm understanding the diagrams correctly which i think i am. in the original design, what you see in alternative d for what was left of the building was what was presented at the time to the arc what the
6:26 pm
intention was and the comments centered around at minimum retaining the mission street portion of the building, and how odd it was that the proportions of the building would be so diminished by chopping off part of that facade and platting it together. i think part of the preservation alternative and full preservation alternative, they have a draft that is significantly better than before. i'm sort of mixed. i think that the partial preservation alternative from the street, you know, again, we can't really see this from a diagram, but i suspect from the street, these two would probably feel almost the same, and if you are taking 25% of a warehouse or 35% of the warehouse, i don't think that makes much of a difference if the
6:27 pm
partial preservation alternative allows the project to more, to better fit the program that is desired here because i think that the significant part is from 11th and mission and seeing that whole portion of the building that is so recognizable today. >> i think you summed it up. i think the mission street elevation is really important and that certainly should be maintained and not truncated. that is a bizarre, odd choice. >> so are you saying that maybe we would recommend that the partial preservation alternatives when it comes to 11 street side to be more towards the actual project, or more aggressive in a sense? >> which preserves the building fairly intact. >> but maybe the partial one
6:28 pm
could meet more or all the objectives. >> i think we are in a funny balance between the needs of the city and the project which is totally substantial. i agree with mr. bueller where he said if we did what was before, it would look silly rather than representing the planning department of san francisco. but i think the preservation alternative, again, what's the story that we are telling? i don't know if we can save every building 100% intact, and still meet goals and objectives of a growing and changing ways, city. so i think the partial preservation alternative getscious you know, is a nice balance between definitely saving enough of the building that
6:29 pm
it is perceptionly the same building and taking the warehouse space. you don't see the warehouse space from the street except the 11th street elevation. it's not that per say significant in my opinion. >> can i ask a question of staff, just looking at these diagrams, ms. valley, the difference from the map appears that the partial one is more towards 11th street than the full. but are there other differences that we are not seeing from this diagram. there is more stories on the fold, the little setback piece is a little taller. >> i'm going to defer to who works on these alternatives. >> the main differences are that the full is setback approximately
6:30 pm
59 feet from 11th street. and approximately 110 feet from mission street. the partial is setback approximately 29 feet from 11th street, and 38 feet from mission street. that difference is on the partial you have an addition, 1 story addition directly behind the tower, and then you get the step up to the larger tower. the other difference which is sort of minor is that there are some differences in the height in the tower from where they step back, but the primary differences are those set backs. >> can i ask a question? i see that. i didn't see that small 1 story piece behind the tower. if you
6:31 pm
didn't have that, are the face of the stepping tower equal distance on both partial and full? >> yes. the base of the stepping tower are the same on each, but you don't have that additional 1 story piece on the whole. >> okay, that was not quite visible. this looks the same. >> thank you, commissioner hyland. >> so on the full preservation alternative, the impact to the historic resource could be mitigated less than significant, are is that correct? >> the finding was that there is less than significant impact on the full mitigation. correct. >> could it be significant? >> it be less than significant. >> the partial? >> there would still be a
6:32 pm
significant on the partial. >> okay, the recommendation, we are the historic preservation commission. the city should represent the values of what we think are important and not propose a project that does not align with that. personally, i would move to recommend the full preservation alternative myself. >> yeah, i didn't see that portion. i didn't realize. they look the same from these diagrams. i agree with commissioner hyland, that that represents who we are and what we are promoting in our department here. >> commissioner johnck? >> i would definitely agree with that position on supporting the full. in our comments back to the planning commission. the other question i had on the mitigation conditions, would the mitigation conditions still apply? i
6:33 pm
mean it is less than significant, but because i'm interested in the public interpretation. i just gave you my take on the mitigation conditions because you mentioned the halves and the public interpretation for the significant impacts, but there is also another program that is very helpful and important, and that's of the national park service and that's the historic american landscape survey. which is kind of three prong. if we had gone, i'm just saying that i like to see some exploration of that if we had gone in some other direction. if it's less than significant, maybe we don't go that route. >> yes, the full preservation alternative was determined to have a less than significant. we would not be required to mitigate it. if you wanted to have that type of comment, we can respond to it
6:34 pm
in the responsive document. >> i think, remember this is a draft eir. we will be responding to all comments. i think it would be helpful if you were to comment. i think i heard you say this that the range of alternatives was appropriate so the planning commission would know that what was analyzed was in the appropriate range of alternatives if that made sense, and then you certainly can defer on it, but it would be helpful if you say that the range of analysis was correct. >> great. >> i have another question of ms. valley. the question was, i don't remember the answer. so i'm asking you. it found that the full preservation met the standards and the building was still ineligible for the historic resource, was that true for the partial preservation and still eligible under the historic
6:35 pm
resource? >> no. under the partial, it found that it did not retain, the partial did not retain enough of the features to still convey it's significance. that's why the partial is still found to have a significant impact. >> i see. thank you. >> so i think in addition to what mr. ram said was in this letter do we concur that this project does not meet the standard. the second was do we concur with the range that this was an appropriate range of study that was done and do we concur with the findings that these as ms. valley that the partial does not meet the standards but the full alternative would meet the standards and we can add language saying what our preference is. those are my questions for the commission. >> sounds appropriate. >> we do concur. prepare a letter that we do concur with the energy
6:36 pm
report that the project as proposed does not meet with the standards. we do concur with the findings that the full preservation alternative would meet the standards and what do we do about the range alternatives that were studied. is that appropriate range of alternatives? we are grateful that the alternatives that met the project objectives because often there is alternatives that doesn't meet the subject. we hope the planning commission will think long and hard about this position. >> can we also state that we would propose the full preservation, we would recommend that over the proposed project? >> yes. and i think i would also concur about the symbolism about this project and what it says about the city's interest in preserving the
6:37 pm
historical resources. is that enough? >> good. >> who is writing the letter? ms. valley? do you have enough? is that clear, our comments are clear? okay. very good. i think welcome move on. >>clerk: very good commissioners, that will place us on item 7. 7. 2016-006763coa (f. mcmillen: (415) 575-9076) 2007 franklin street west side between washington and jackson streets, lot 002 in assessor's block 0600 (district 2). this is a certificate of appropriateness. the >> commissioners, i would like you to meet francis. she recently moved to the bay area following washington d.c. preservation office where she was in charge of several districts.
6:38 pm
prior to serving, she served at the national region at the national park service and development of the parks and national landmarks. >> welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. before you is a request for certificate of appropriateness to make exterior alterations to the house at 2007-franklin street. this involves adding lighting. the scope of the work subject to the certificate of appropriateness includes installation of a rear fireplace and the window on a
6:39 pm
pantry to accommodate the new fire escape ladder. modification of the slope walkway and removal of the stairs on franklin street and involves removal of the rear porch and removal of the landing staircase and emotion to the back porch decking to allow for level surface streets to the building. staff finds the issues recommended will be in conformance requirements of article 10 and rehabilitation proposed design appears to be compatible with the character of the building. the alteration do not remove character defining features and primarily located at the rear of the property which will not be visible on the public right-of-way. none of the building
6:40 pm
materials or spaces or spacial relationships will be affected by the proposed project. the hand rails and staircase railings are new features which are compatible with the building character and materials. the platform lift will be painted the same color of the building. the staff recommends the following recommendation for approval. the fire escape be detailed and provided to staff for approval and review for staff and approval. third condition is a final approval saying the project is in keeping in the facade they hold on the property. a letter from the trust has been received and distributed to you. no penalties have been received since the packet has been
6:41 pm
submitted. this concludes my presentation. project sponsor is here and will make a presentation on the project. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, again mike bueller with san francisco heritage. the project sponsor, and i would like to first acknowledge all the work that francis has done on this project, and ensuring that what you will see today is comprehensive, and sensitive to the building. i'm just going to provide an overview and a history of this project so you understand the larger context. we have members of the project team to answer any specific questions you might have regarding the design and plans before you. today's hearing is a culmination of about 5 years of study and fundraising for this project. the house in case you are not
6:42 pm
aware of the history was given to san francisco heritage in 1973 by the members of the family when we were only 2 years old as an organization with no staff. whiches a remarkable responsibility they entrusted us with. since 1973 it was the only -- house in san francisco and holds educational programs, for third grade students. soon i became the director in 2010 and the board issued capital maintenance needs and to assess it's long-term sustainability and viability. at that time, with historic museums
6:43 pm
the house suffered declining revenue and maintenance needs. through that process, heritage commission did a series of studies by the national trust historic preservation, the american -- alliance of museums and others to look at the house and how we can change its course. in 2012, heritage successfully urged the national trust to declare the house one of 34 inaugural treasures in america. that was a really pivotal point for this project. not only historic significance but cultural significance as one of the city's landmarks with the city's early jewish community in terms of building and rebuilding this city.
6:44 pm
through the national treasure designation, we were eligible to receive technical assistance through the national trust through visitor surveys and a plan for the house. the scope today is directly informed by the process that heritage did collaborate with the national trust in identifying both the interpretive needs as well as the programming and business needs of the house to make it more attractive as a rental venue and as a museum space. the scope before you includes voluntary seismic improvement, the rear fire escape, restoration work of course and most importantly accessiblity improvements. the house is not accessible
6:45 pm
to disabled. this project is with our expert will make the building accessible. all of this planning work informed the development of capital campaign plan. the capital campaign, i was supposed to give you this brochure. the capital campaign was publically announced last november 2015. at the time we raised about 75% of the $4.3 million goal. i should emphasize this is the first capital campaign in heritage's 45-year history. throughout that time we have done projects around the house such as reroofing
6:46 pm
the house and paint, etc. this is the first time we address the deferred maintenance and capital improvement needs of the house. i'm pleased to report a year after the public announcement that we have now raised over 92% of the $4.3 million goal and we have a push to close out the campaign in the next few months. with your hope for approval today, we will be poised to start major construction of the house in the spring of next year or as soon as building permits are issued for the house. i should note that we have already completed as many of you may know exterior repair and restoration and repainting of the house bringing it back to its original color palate. the original color on the
6:47 pm
broch -- brochure is not the historic cal color. as i mentioned, we have members of the project team here today. if you have any questions regarding the plan before you. we have our project manager, steven doctor who has been working with us over a year now and refining the plans for the house as well as our project architect, and i'm of course happy to take any questions you might have of me. thank you very much. >> thank you. any questions? no. thank you very much. at this time we are going to take public comment on this item. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. bring it back to
6:48 pm
commissioners. commissioners, comments, questions, motions? >> this is fabulous. i love this kind of attention. any way, i move to approve the staff recommendation. >> second. >> great. >>clerk: thank you, commissioners, on that motion then to approve this matter with conditions, commissioner johnck, yes, commissioner john's, yes, commissioner matsuda, yes, commissioner pearlman, yes, commissioner hyland, yes, commissioner wolfram, yes, this matter is approved. 8-0. >> this tames -- takes you to item 8. 8. 2014.1434coa (r. sucre: (415) 575-9108)
6:49 pm
950 tennessee street located on the west side of tennessee street between 20th and 22nd streets, assessor's block 4107, lot 001b (district 10) >> members of the staff, this project is located with the boundaries of the downtown landmark district. the proposed project entails a district, the project incorporates a common open space and courtyard and a passageway. for appendix article 10. 950 tennessee street is located as an element structure. from 1857. 950 tennessee street should have been identified as a non-contributing source. there is a documentation including in the appendix for your report
6:50 pm
and affirms that 950 tennessee street was a none contributing resource for the district. on june 15, 2016, the project was received by the review committee. they requested the following. additional diagrams and documentations to illustrate the project for the landmark district. refinement of the administration of the dog patch project and the materials and refinement within the industrial portion of the project. to address the comments of the arc, the project sponsor undertook the following revisions. they appropriated the following documents to show the packet to the landmark district. the new district is shown in the immediate vicinity. the project pattern within the portion include the design and the ratio and facade and incorporation into
6:51 pm
penetration pattern. they revised the handrail to read as a glazed panel with a solid cap and finally they refined the design of the industrial portion to reduce the thin pattern that had been problematic in the earlier design iterations. over all the department has determined that they addressed the arc comments however they would like to add certain conditional of approval to the project. as of december 1, 2016, the department did receive one inquiry regarding the project. the dog patch organization expressed support for the project depending on the passageway. they have included the alleyway and passageway to the neighborhood. the developer has entered into a memorandum of understanding to commit to building the mid-block
6:52 pm
passageway. overall the staff recommends approval and finds the project to be consistent with the character of the surrounding landmark district. to ensure the appropriateness, staff recommends the following conditions. as part of the permit the project sponsor shall provide material samples, panels and coated aluminum to ensure the landmark district and shall show range of color. the department will work with staff to further analyze the pattern. it should be better scaled for the building and reinforce the module as well as the organized fold of
6:53 pm
the cottage which is characteristic to the dog patch sculpture, and shall work with the department to determine an appropriate setback. the project sponsor is present and prepared to show a presentation. i'm available for questions and available for questions. >> would the project sponsor come forward? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm juan carlos wallace with the project sponsor. i want to highlight a couple of key things. great. a few key facts about the project some of which rich has already touched on. it's a 4 story project, 103 units. i wanted to add to the passage which rich mentioned is an important aspect to support the project.. from the get-go we proposed this passage even though it's not required for
6:54 pm
code, a for the need for additional open space, but important from an historic perspective, there used to be an alley connecting minnesota to kentucky street until the early 1930s. with planning support, the neighborhood support, we thought it was an important aspect of integrating the project with the existing neighborhood fabric. the site is currently occupied by a light industrial building that was built after a period of significance for the dog patch district. i want to highlight a couple of additional facts about our community outreach. we engaged with the community 18 months ago and met with them close to a dozen times, incorporated 2-dozen significant comments, some more significant than otherwise, widening the path and design aspects along with
6:55 pm
feedback from the architectural review committee. that concluded with a meeting of the full membership with the dna a couple weeks ago where they did endorse the project. i will hand it to glen for a full presentation of the project. >> good afternoon. it's great to be here again. this is a project that pretty much really aligned well with our owner and the neighborhood as well as with everyone else that's participated. going back to the monitor, one of the things that we were very excited about is the fact that this kentucky place alley existed. the fact that the planning department felt that a mid-block passageway was important and the fact that the neighborhood wanted this passageway and that we thought the
6:56 pm
passageway would be an amenity to the project. a lot of design work that we have done stems from the fact that we have this unique opportunity. just going through some of the images, as you can see which is also interesting this is a context where there is 50% warehouses and 50% residential units. we were trying to find an architecture that would embrace both aspects of this connect. it's a very unique area of san francisco and we are very sensitive to what we put there. again, existing site photos as you can see, there is the warehouse type buildings as well as residential type buildings. it's a little bit sort of kind of hodge podge. there is a rhythm, but at the same time, it's slightly inconsistent, so one of the things that we wanted to do with our planning was to
6:57 pm
really come up with a sort of a rational rhythm to this area. so we started our process by locating with a we referred to is the industrial looking building adjacent to the passageway which then mirrors the opposite side which also has an industrial type building. then adjacent to that we did the residential type buildings. one of the key components to what we developed here is the ground floor is all the units on the ground floor are accessed from the street. we have units above that you enter from an elevator to the street and similar to the cottages. we have done tremendous work with set backs,
6:58 pm
modulation of administration and the facade of the windows to create that bond with what's existing in the fabric and this new building, going to some of these key points of the district article 10 and we try to follow this as close as possible. we had several meetings with dna and we discussed how to embrace the majority of these comments. we did a tremendous amount of work. we didn't want to put all the notes on here. one of the things, it turned out to be a better project. to solidify the components, we did a mass here and window sizes. we opened the glass and make it more in keeping with the
6:59 pm
neighborhood. with the industrial type building, we removed the strong fins we had and applied the windows to show the warehouse feeling to it, and again, i think we all made a tremendous amount of progress. we emphasized the two sky lights to bring that idea of warehouse architecture back into the streetscape. on here you have different views from minnesota and tennessee. >> one of the big components is we setback the building on the ground floor quite a bit on both streets to add some landscaping and privacy in the back to make it more of a natural, a nice experience for someone to walk
7:00 pm
down the streets. and then a combination of colors to help breakdown the overall massing of the project in general. one major component to this project is the mid-block passage. our landscape designer is not here today, but we've been working very closely with him and dna to create a passageway that is not just a thoroughfare, but something that is meandering, something that is tranquilizer -- tranquil where you can sit to create an entry. it's a type of alley that is active. it will be a well lit alley. it will be open to the public. it's finally detailed and we are very
7:01 pm
excited about the opportunity of also including art components within the alley itself. we have ideas of the planting of the ground treatment as well as some linear or some light fixtures hanging through there to give it a much more pedestrian feel. so with that, i conclude the presentation. if you have any questions, we are here to answer them. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions for the sponsors or the staff? commissioner johnck? >> i would like to say i was really thrilled with your description of your journey as you went through the process of describing the rational rhythm and the relationship, the dialectical relationship through industrial. i wanted to say congratulations on that. i really loved that.
7:02 pm
the other thing i was interested in was there was a document for the precedence on landscape. i was just curious and of course the passageway looks wonderful. were these in different parts of california? >> can you speak into the microphone, please? >> yeah. >> to the one at the lower right in the middle or the second one from the left is on guerrero, it's a residential project that we did. >> okay. >> a couple of them are from europe. we always take a precedence from europe. it's hard to find in san francisco. it has a good feel when it's well lit. but it's been a while when we have seen it.
7:03 pm
belden alley is also nice when it's we'll lit. we were trying to create that feel. >> any other questions. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we'll bring it back to the commission. commissioner pearlman? >> i want to thank the project sponsor for incorporating so many of the suggestions that we made at the arc. i think the project has really come a long way. i really having been a dog patch resident for 7 years and having walked by this area almost daily, i'm really excited about seeing this come to fruition. i really like the resolution with those big fins at the top that you have made them more refined. it actually looks more industrial than before. i thought that was a very good change. over all, you know, i have, i
7:04 pm
take a little bit of exception to the condition of regularizing the row house portion. i think mr. rescaldo, it's very hodge podge. there is warehouses, loft buildings, warehouses. there is no specific patterning that i think is discernable. and the idea that this is not exactly regular is a good thing. the idea that the historic building is regularized and very boring. it's a very dull thing and while it picks up a portion of what dog patch is. the next block over there are
7:05 pm
some regular row house. what i like about this project is it's kind of global view of dog patch in finding these threads that be dog patch and bringing together in the project which i think overall is quite successful. the handrail thing is such a, the guardrail thing is such a challenging one. i like what you have done on the row house portion where it looks like a high window. that is an interesting simmons -- response that i don't think we have seen before. the warehouse design, you have these big windows coming up and this glass railing above it. the idea that this glass rail is impactful to the historic
7:06 pm
district to the windows, doesn't make sense to me. those are fine to me. they don't seem to make much of an impact and i don't think setting them back. when you see an image like this one, when you see an image like this one and of course you see the guard rails there setting them back 2-5 feet will only serve to make the deck smaller but will make no difference perceptually to the project. first of all, i don't think there is an issue with the handrail. so i don't think that's critical. in the wording, i actually take exception inform regularizing row
7:07 pm
house and what the issue is we are trying to do. >> when you pull to the elevation, part of one of the staff when they were looking at this overall design. they have this row house module established. what is consistent with the row house or residential module within the fenestration of the district, even though it might not have an overall regular pattern, there is an order to how the fenestration is. if you look at the elevation and not on the bay window portion of the building, but the background portion of the building, they have this offset that helps make the pattern, that residential module not as apparent as it could be. so rather than having like a series of row house
7:08 pm
buildings that are tucked one next to another, it looks more like a larger mass with the bay windows stuck on. i think the fenestration helps promote that pattern right now. so if the fenestration was ordered a little bit more, you might actually read it more as a module as opposed to mass with bay windows on it. >> commissioners, tim fry, department staff. if you look at the rendering on the elevation on page 36 of your packet that shows i believe that's tennessee street, what mr. sue krey is talking about specifically in terms of usthe 25-foot module sort of the l shape windows that go all the way to the projecting elements and don't
7:09 pm
read much like a punched opening give that side of a development more of a monolithic appearance which is true for the industrial buildings within the district, but here when there is an attempt to do a little bit of industrial and lebt of residential, we felt if there was a little bit more breathing around those window openings could help read more in residential character. we believe it could be some minor fixes which we thought would be a conditional approval. that was the best way to move the condition. we don't expect it to change entirely. >> my concern was regularizing and making it more look the same. i don't want to see this become a series of rectangular bays at
7:10 pm
a rhythm. that would boringize it. >> the conditional of approval for the glass railing is a conditional approval that is required for any type of properties that proposes a rooftop desk. that's the primary reason that condition is there that primarily the staff and these conditions on the railing of a roof on a structure of a district should setback so they don't read in the same plain as the main face of the building that they have some sort of subordinate nature that's why it's not in the feed of a setback of conditional of approval because here it's not completely out of view. it maybe an offset of a couple feet or
7:11 pm
so, but it was more aligned with previous conditions that this commission has asked for. >> it appears with the way the bay is done on that portion, it appears already back from that line. i understand. that's fine. again, thanks for the explanation. i appreciate that. >> commissioner hyland? >> picking up on that comment, i think the perception is because of the frame of the industrial frame, those railings are perceived to be setback. i think they do meet the intent of what we've wanted to do in the past. the -- i think this is a very successful project. i think i mentioned this at the arc is that you are a victim to your own analysis. that is what really what we are looking at is almost two industrial buildings and trying to stay
7:12 pm
to the original analysis maybe what's, you know, driving the need for this regularity. i think you accomplished a lot. i don't remember the exact recommendations but you were able to work on this alleyway. i guess i would leave it to you to work out with staff on the regularity on the fenestration, but i think overall i would agree with everything that commissioner pearlman said. >> is there a motion. >> i move approval of the project. >> second. >> is there anymore comment? >> i second the motion. my comment on the motion is i think this is a fantastic project. the memorandum of understanding, i
7:13 pm
think it would be great to be part of the record. the dna, you said there was a memorandum and we have already seen the passageway in the exhibits, etc. so there is no question that the sponsor is not going to go ahead with it. i think it would be helpful for future projects to have the memorandum as part of the record. i don't know whether that needs to be a condition or? >> we have a copy of the agreement that the sponsor sent us, but typically we can't be a party to a neighborhood group and the sponsor. we know the sponsor has committed to doing the mid-block alley and we acknowledge that they have gone on record as stating this is part of our project. >> it would have to come back. it would be a major change.
7:14 pm
>> commissioners, in point to your motion, do you want to remove the word "regularize"? >> no, the memorandum of understanding is in our conversation. >> i wanted to make a comment about the mid-block passageway and this is certainly an effort certainly providing a main entrance to the complex. but i would imagine this would have a lot of people lingering and staying. i know there are some other projects that are coming before us in the near future. i hope they are as successful as this. >> this might be worth noting and you may notice that we've been working for some time with the neighborhood on a streetscape plan in dog patch
7:15 pm
and this is part of the network that's been identified and for example, there are places in the dog patch that still don't have sidewalks. so we are working with the neighborhood to correct that and identify high priority locations for passage ways like this one. so it really is becoming a part of the network of green space within the network for a great benefit. >> it seems we have a motion and second. >>clerk: commissioners, if there is nothing further. the motion has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. commissioner johnck, yes, commissioner john's, yes, commissioner matsuda, commissioner hyland, commissioner wolfram, and commissioner pearlman, yes. this matters is approved. this places us on item 9.
7:16 pm
9. 2016-01105des (s. ferguson: (415) 575-9074) 1970 ocean avenue north side of ocean avenue, assessor's block 3280, lot 018 (district 7) - consideration to initiate >> commissioners, we have had a request from the owner to continue this project. we will take up public comment on this and decide whether we want to continue it. >> are there people here speaking for the theatre? yes. okay. thank you. we will take public comment. if there is a desire to continue it, then we can do so. >> good afternoon, commissioners, janette ferguson, department staff. i'm here regarding the el ray theatre in the ingleside neighborhood. the building was added to the landmark work program in august 2016.
7:17 pm
the landmark was prepared by the preservation consulting at the request of the art deco society. the final draft was received by the department october 2016. 1970 ocean is the only theatre remaining by this architectural style. the building and designing features of the exterior and interior can be found in the report. character designing interior include the lobby and auditorium. they were historically publically accessible. the theatre also includes two priorities for designation. it meets the first
7:18 pm
designation priority which is the designation of under represented landmark property types including landscapes. although there is five other movie theatres designated, there is are redesigned. this is the only original movie theatre originally designed in the art deco. it also meets the third designation priority which is buildings located geographically in under represented areas. there is only one other existing landmark located nearby, landmark no. 213. the cecil pool house a craftsman style home constructed in 1911. the first non-white owner. as an art deco style, it's a very different prototype. there is no known public or
7:19 pm
neighborhood opposition to designation of el rey theatre as an architectural landmark. the department received several reports of designation after the submittal of the report. the department will provide any additional correspondence in the commission's correspondence folder. staff has met with the property owner several times and the department believes it meets the original landmarks. the department recommendation hpcs designation. it will be sent as a landmark to the board of supervisors. this ends my presentation. >> thank you. at this time we are going to take public comment on this item. >> i just wanted to ask a
7:20 pm
question. is there an issue if we initiate today? i mean, does that create a problem for the owner. i understand they wanted to postpone. i'm just wondering if there is any technical reason that that would cause them any particular? >> that's a good question, tim fry. department. from our perspective it doesn't but since we have been working with the property owner and with different individuals who had different schedules, it was a challenge to get them here in such a short notice. they are supportive in waiting for the first hearing in january. >> they are supportive of the designation. i would say as a courtesy since they have asked. >> but at this time if we
7:21 pm
have public comment, since people have come all the way here. please come up. you have 3 minutes and you will get a second warning. public speaker: yes, my name is robert carilla and i live by the theatre. i'm also an owner of a business. i think this will be a great benefit. this building is in great shape. they can have meetings and a great theatre for music and dance and the way technology is nowadays with screens and digital things. they can host film festivals, it can serve as a forum for lectures, poetry readings, children's theatre.
7:22 pm
there is a host of activities that this facility can do to enrich, not only the nearby community but the community at large and it has great transportation. they can use balboa and the k and the m cars. it's a golden find that we were able to see that building there. it's already built and it's a beautiful structure. it can enrich the whole area in the many ways of transportation. i hope that we are able to keep it and preserve it. it's already great. thank you. >> thank you. are there other members who wish to speak, please come forward. public speaker: i'm patricia
7:23 pm
duff. the theatre is a very memorable building. i always say go down ocean and turn on victoria. it's right next to the big tall pink tower. i want to speak on behalf of the designation. i think it's a terrific idea. as you know our neighborhood, the department of planning knows, our neighborhood is under tremendous pressure. our homes are being completely remodeled and it's a big site to keep our historic neighborhood intact. the el rey theatre was part of the neighborhood as the neighborhood grew up. it not only reflects the
7:24 pm
great work of timothy krueger but also a great community gathering place. it has that significance and also the home of the gap. it was built with both commercial and entertainment aspect to it. so, i would like to see this building be restored and have you know maybe reuse those commercial spaces again rather than be turned into some development that we see a lot of on ocean which is a condo. thank you. are there any others, please come forward. public speaker: good
7:25 pm
afternoon. san francisco heritage. heritage is in strong support of this nomination. in fact we helped fund this nomination with the fund which was matched by the grant from the national trust for preservation. we think this is an exemplary community effort, obviously it's around this landmark and the national preservation is important and it would be wonderful to see two landmarks in this city to join the presbyterian church within the next few months. i urge you to approve. thank you. >> thank you. public speaker: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is louis.
7:26 pm
i'm a former san francisco member of the historic alal sight. it's vitally important that you designate el rey to landmark designation. it was one of the defunct theatres on the city's radar for the activation candidates and also listed on the national cinema treasure website for historic significance. we also hope as an association that we can also have in partnership with city college and sf state and community members to react vaet the
7:27 pm
spacing for community use. thank you. >> next speaker. public speaker: i'm richard carrillo. today i'm speaking to you as a citizen because i'm no longer in that position and volunteering for the ocean street commission. i wanted to urge the landmarking of the el re y theatre. this is the iconic building on ocean avenue. i think it's important that we landmark the building and bring it back to some live performances and movies. it's very critical. el rey is to ocean avenue as the castro theatre is to the castro. they have the same architecture as
7:28 pm
well. it's one of the most important buildings i have worked on. i would definitely like to make sure that you understand the importance and that you landmark the building. thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. and bring it back to commission. do i have a motion to continue this item? >> i move to continue it. >> second. >> what was the date? >> january 18th. i would like to thank the members of the public for coming today. we will consider your comments as well at our next hearing. i think we have a motion and second to continue to the 18. >> second. >> very good. >>clerk: on that motion to continue this matter to january 18, 2017. commissioner johnck, yes,
7:29 pm
commissioner john's, commissioner matsuda, commissioner pearlman, commissioner hyland, commissioner wolfram, yes. >> commissioners, this puts on on item 10. 10. 2011.1124l (s. parks: (415) 575-9101) 2117-2123 market street south side of market street between church and 15th streetslot 012 in assessor's block 3543 (district 7). >> 10. 2011.1124l (s. parks: (415) 575-9101)
7:30 pm
2117-2123 market street south side of market street between church and 15th streetslot 012 in assessor's block 3543 (district 7). good afternoon commissioners. desiree smith for the planning department. the issue before you is to approve the building on 2117-2123 market street. since that time they have not been able to bring the complete report forward. staff requested to bring the full document forward. i have a copy of the draft here. the haul was constructed in 1906. the building is a rare accent property mixed use building with
7:31 pm
commercial frontage. this is an image of the exterior. the building is also significant for it's associations with the city's events earthquake infrastructure and building housed social and fraternal organizations. after the 1906 disaster. the building is also significant as a sales and manufacturing of the visalia stock company, a saddle business founded in california from three immigrants from sonora, mexico. the building retains it's original design and retains architectural integrity. designed by architect from swedish hotels and new materials and
7:32 pm
ornament. overall it's classic revival and the building is combined with craftsman detail and nailhead square brackets and exaggerated square brackets. the building is one of of pioneering saddle company. the headquarters were in a new building. as an example of the type and period it's part of the of ground commercial use with meeting rooms occupying the upper floors.
7:33 pm
the hall in san francisco in 1907, it's one of the only examples which survive and have good integrity. the designation establishes two periods of significance of 1906-1909 and 1911 to 1953 with the visalia stock company. it's exterior height in massing and the architectural details and motif including cornices and molding and entry doors and ground floors and configuration and second floor administration. the defining features include the materials including the truses and brackets and stairs and
7:34 pm
vestibule. commissioners i have a floor plan for the level. when we bring this item back to you in the second hearing, we will include this in the report. there is no known public or neighborhood opposition to designation of 2117-2123 market street as an historical landmark. however the owners submitted a letter in opposition to the designation 2 weeks ago. staff has been in contact with the owners but has not been able to bring the item forward with consent. the department believes that the building meets established eligibility requirements and the status is warranted. many staff recommends that hpc designate this. that concludes my
7:35 pm
presentation. >> any questions. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners? commissioner john's? >> yes, it is a difficult word, visalia, but that's how it's said. starting in the mid-19th century my family had cattle around visalia and i would ride visalia cattle. so i move that we go forward with this application. >> thank you, commissioner pearlman. yeah, also visalia is always confused with -- vidalia onions. i
7:36 pm
always have issues when we landmark something and the owner is not in support. it's always such a problem. i think it's a problem if you are a property owner and the city does something to you and affects your use of your building in some ways. can you talk to that a little bit, mr. fry? >> sure, tim fry, department staff. to light on our discussion with the property owner, the company which is housed on the ground floor of the building, they are situated in berkeley and did purchase the property several years ago and since then we have discussed with them several times
7:37 pm
the benefits and requirements, we discussed with them the mills act. they expressed just an overall disinterest in owning a landmark property which is why they issued the letter. right now i think the department's perspective as we have seen in other parts of the city, they receive all the -- sticks that come with the landmark and none of the carrots. because they are still required by ceqa, they are not allowed to take advantage of any of those benefits. we do see a positive outcome if the building is designated at the local level, however, there is nothing in the code that precludes this commission or the board of supervisors for making the building or designating the building at the local level without the owners consent. >> i think it would have been
7:38 pm
helpful if the they actually in their letter gave some detail as to why the rational and then we could have taken that perhaps, not that we are not taking it seriously but we would have had a better understanding of their concerns. to say we are disinterested, it's not helpful to under their reasons. >> commissioner hyland? >> yeah, i think mr. fry said it perfectly. whether this is a landmark or not, they are still under all the requirements of ceqa and this will serve as their benefit and to know that's available to them. i'm sure we'll see a mills act application in a few months. i'm glad to see this finally before us. it saddens me that the owner isn't interested. i would move to. >> we already have a motion.
7:39 pm
>> you want to second it. >> i'm done. >> actually we have a motion and second to initiate designation. >> indeed with do, commissioners. on that motion to approve the initiation, commissioner johnck, commissioner john's, commissioner pearlman, commissioner hyland, commissioner wolfram, commissioner pearlman, this matter is approved. this places us on items --
7:40 pm
item 11a. 2016-014707lbr (s. cisneros: (415) 575-9186) 1563 polk street west side of polk street at the corner of sacramento street. assessor's block 0643, lot 007 (district 3). 11b. 2016-014912lbr (s. cisneros: (415) 575-9186) 603 valencia street east side of valencia street at the corner of 17th street. assessor's block 3576, lot 128 (district 9) 11c. 2016-014698lbr (s. cisneros: (415) 575-9186) 5240 geary boulevard north side of geary boulevard between 18th avenue and 19th avenue. assessor's block 1450, lot 019a 9) 11c. 2016-014698lbr (s. cisneros: (415) 575-9186) 5240 geary boulevard north side of geary boulevard between 18th avenue and 19th avenue. assessor's block 1450, lot 019a (district 1) >> 1234 all were submitted to the planning department. your submissions packet contains a draft resolution outlining physical features associated with the success of the business. the first application before you today is for brownie's hardware that has been in operation for 110 years and prides itself in an effort to cater to the repair and surrounding needs of businesses. the businesses original location was on golden gate avenue destroyed in the earthquake and fire.
7:41 pm
it reopened on polk street. it's making it an integral part of the community and one of the businesses to survive the earthquake and fire. the next application, good vibration, a retailer that promotes sexual health. the business is founded in the mission district in 1977 and has since opened in several locations in northern california and east coast. good vibrations includes a non-judgmental and well lit store for products. in the business this promotes the professional development of women and lgbtq individuals. the last application is for joe's ice cream. a local ice cream and dessert
7:42 pm
shop. joe's started to offer a unique variety of flavors. the business grew in the selection of items as they added additional flavors and variety of products such as burgers and hot dogs. joe's has become a strong supporter of the community, often hiring local kids to work and rewards students for high academic performance with coupons. after reviewing this, these properties qualify for the local registry. this completes my presentation. there are a n a couple people with a presentation. >> thank you. at this time i
7:43 pm
will call for public comment. the first person. carol queen. >> thank you very much. it's an honor to be able to speak to you. the business manager is with me too in case you would like to speak to her. i'm the staff sexologyist. i have been with the company since 1990. we just lost joanie blank this summer. she started in 1977 after working with pre -- or gasmic groups. she was able to empower them sexually. i met her after i came to san francisco in the mid-80s to be part of the program for human sexuality which you heard referenced early on, if there is a way for me to be
7:44 pm
invited to that hearing in january, i would love to come. i was partway through my doctoral program in human sexuality when i got invited to be part of good vibrations and to start their educational programming. it's an honor to be able to sync good vibrations in the context of this store's legacy business. it was a place in san francisco where we can grow up and become a business that we are and we hope to give back to the community in many ways. we have programming where we support non-profits, programming that allows us to bring people in to do educational workshops and at our location that is near brownies, we have antique vibrator museum.
7:45 pm
we hope you make our legacy formal. thank you very much. >> public speaker: good afternoon, commissioners, i'm owner of joe's ice cream. thank you for this legacy. my wife she's known as alice and i, we are the fourth generation of joe's ice cream. joe established the ice cream in 1969. we have kept the classic's characteristics throughout the year. since we took over joe's who
7:46 pm
had operated over 33 years until 2012. we inherited all the operations and philosophy from him. a year later we decided to move to the neighborhood in san francisco and dedicated also to joe's. it has been a very joyful experience to keep joe's presence alive in the district. joe's alone where people get it together for the many point before or after sports activity meeting place for a school project and also celebrating a place for holiday and the first date place for young couples. and also the first working place for high schoolers and also grandparents for their grandchildren. our customers are friends, families, neighbors. we are very happy to watch
7:47 pm
them to grow. we especially appreciate this legacy. during the application process we could find ourselves more clearly. we have kept over 45 flavors for more than half a decade. this is all long forgotten but classic flavors, like root beer, we still keep helps to flavors. so you can check all of those flavors with us. we believe these flavors help people recall back to their old days and remember their sweet past memories. our family and three kids were committed to joe's ice cream thriving and hope to create more memories in the future. thank you very much.
7:48 pm
>> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to speak on this item, please come forward. public speaker: hi, i'm the owner of brownies hardware. since the 1950s, i went to redding elementary school around the corner and i have been in that neighborhood my whole life. the only corner that i know that have been around since that time is swans oysters. being here there are so many connections. just listening today, before the heritage house was belonged to heritage. i'm listening here and of course mentioned good vibes, when good vibes wanted to move to polk street we worked with teresa sparks and
7:49 pm
helped bring them in. the owners of brownies have always been connected with our neighborhood. the first owner was the president of the merchants for year and very instrumental in 1939 when they had the fair and polk street became -- and they had the streets change the facades to an old western town. you will see the picture of brownies as the old town. i was present in 2006 when brownies hosted businesses that were over 100 years old. we did a big party and the mayor and supervisors and even an earthquake cake at the time. brownies has been around for many years. i can tell you so many stories. i'm
7:50 pm
proud the family that has taken it over and looking forward to another 100 years of it. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner john's? >> once again, we got a really great group of businesses and stories, around as i was hearing about joe's where i have been many times over the last several decades, as a place for dates followed by good vibrations perhaps a few blocks from the doors of brownies. [ laughter ] now we are put on the record as the testimony aren't we? that's okay. that's wonderful. so i move that all these businesses be granted the legacy status.
7:51 pm
>> thank you. >> second. >> we have a motion and second. we are going to take additional comments from commissioners. >> as always, it's really just fantastic to hear about these businesses which i have said. i think this is our fourth hearing where we have had groups of businesses come and talk about who you are and who you are as part of san francisco and you are what makes san francisco such a special and wonderful home for all of us. i want to thank you, and i love your story about your representation of joe's that you are the fourth generation in whatever that is almost 60 years, and just that that's what's so great, again that you are continuing the legacy of this. i just also wanted to say, i also got a chance to go to the toy boat cafe on clemente street. i happened
7:52 pm
to know the owner there and just had a delightful conversation about it and mr. jared fink who is the owner is a complete character. it was just fantastic, the notion of what we are doing here and how it ties everyone together, the threads of what it brings together is a real joy to be a real part of. thank you all for participating. >> commissioner hyland? >> yes, thank you all. i have a question for mr. frye. this is the last section we are going to hear. next year when will the next applications start coming forward and do we want to calendar an agenda item to review what's happened this year so maybe we can improve the process for next year? >> commissioners, we intended to keep working with the office of
7:53 pm
small business and they will continue to forward applications to us.. so we anticipate you will have more applications on your calendar for the january 8th hearing if that's your hearing and we can have a discussion about how we've handled them so far and we can have the office meet with us to talk about how to stream line the program and hopefully we'll have more to report on some of the comments that you have already had over the past few weeks in getting the recordings here as part of maybe the san francisco public library archive or other partnerships with other city agencies to promote these businesses. we can all talk about that at that time. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnck? >> i would like to echo the idea of us doing a review particularly for us and the staff here to consider the
7:54 pm
essential parameters. i mean of the criteria that we think has particularly resonated with us, and i mean, just today, i was thinking more we've heard a lot about the businesses that have contributed a lot to san francisco. from an outreach, i think that's part of the application, but today we are more into neighborhood and the helping hand to other businesses. you are not just in there for yourselves to make a buck. you are in there for the neighborhood too and that particularly resonated with me. i would be interested in having a discussion that wow, these are the parameters that we have heard in the last four sessions. it would be a great discussion. >> i just have one comment and i'm hoping that you can bring it up next year to maybe revisit the process to which nominations are brought forward. i think it would be much more
7:55 pm
open and much more positive if we have other avenues to have small businesses be introduced to us and be considered. >> thank you. >> i think we have a motion and second. >> we do indeed. >>clerk: on that motion to approve the three matters for legacy business registration. to recommend approval. right. commissioner johnck, yes, commissioner john's, yes, commissioner matsuda, commissioner pearlman, yes, commissioner hyland, commissioner wolfram, yes, that item passes unanimously 6-0. >> that was our last item? >> that was indeed our last item. >> the hearing is adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >>
7:56 pm
>> we're here to raise awareness and money and fork for
7:57 pm
a good accuse. we have this incredible gift probably the widest range of restaurant and count ii destines in any district in the city right here in the mission intricate why don't we capture that to support the mission youths going to college that's for the food for thought. we didn't have a signature font for our orientation that's a 40-year-old organization. mission graduates have helped me to develop special as an individual they've helped me figure out and provide the tools for me that i need i feel
7:58 pm
successful in life >> their core above emission and goal is in line with our values. the ferraris yes, we made 48 thousand >> they were on top of that it's a no-brainer for us. >> we're in and fifth year and be able to expand out and tonight is your ungrammatical truck food for thought. food truck for thought is an opportunity to eat from a variety of different vendor that are supporting the mission graduates by coming and representing at the parks >> we're giving a prude of our to give people the opportunity to get an education.
7:59 pm
people come back and can you tell me and enjoy our food. all the vendor are xooment a portion of their precedes the money is going back in >> what's the best thing to do in terms of moving the needle for the folks we thought higher education is the tool to move young people. >> i'm also a college student i go to berkley and 90 percent of our folks are staying in college that's 40 percent hire than the afternoon. >> i'm politically to clemdz and ucla. >> just knowing we're giving back to the community. >> especially the spanish speaking population it hits
8:00 pm
home. >> people get hungry why not eat and give >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco planning commission registry commission registry hearing for thursday, december 15, 2016, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel and commissioner melgar we expect scombhifks commissioner vice president richards and commissioner moore to arrive firefighters first proposed for continuance none so move on to the are considered to be routine may beed

8 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on