tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 20, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PDT
welcome to the historic preservation commission hearing. i would remind the public we do not take outbursts of anytime. please silence your cell phones. i would like to take roll at this time. (roll call). >> first on the agenda is general public conduct. the general public may address the commission except agenda items. the opportunity will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. you may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have one speaker card. we will start with georgia.
>> good afternoon. thank you. i have learned that your survey is on the three year timetable, not two. i am here today because i want to refer to the mary brown sunset study. her recommendation on page 118, which is conduct a focused evaluation survey of battle front mediterranean houses in the sun set district. there were few examples of this type of property in the survey area, it is the most commonly and uniform constructed style in the mid 1920s. by 1931 that style was gone. i have a particular interest in that because, one, i live across the street from an original from
1927. i think that statement from her study has application for the eastern neighborhoods as you go forward with your survey. i hope it is considered. mediterranean revival is predominant per the page report for certain and maybe in other neighborhoods. particularly, the battle front style is unique because it was just built in the very narrow window of time, and like the whole revival is a unique style to san francisco. i want to show you a few examples if i may have the overhead, please. this is my street, and you can see it is a big hill. this is the house i am talking about. i did take it to the planning commission and board of appeals concerned about the retention. i didn't claim it was historic.
i did think it has aesthetic value. nobody said anything about it. there were other issues which i won't bore you with. it is perfectly original 1927. it is very nice. this is another one in the neighborhood. that was done by andrew burwick. this is in the neighborhood that is unique with the medallions at the top. there was no dr for this. here it is underway and you can see what happened. here is one that just recently sold, and they kept it, and you can see. it is interesting that was done by the same andrew burwick. that is my point. i want be to bring up mary brown's study. i hope it is integrated in your survey and that you give consideration to this style. it is unique to san francisco
style architecture. it is nowhere else anywhere. that is all. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to address the commission? seeing none we will close public comment. >> very good that is item one director's announcements. >> i don't have a report from the director. i have a couple announcements myself. i am pleased to announce we had some success in final throws of funding through the budget process and outside of the budget process. through the budget process the bose triangle. $24,000 to finish their designation work, and more so the survey, which i'm sure you recall had been advanced to the
board with a number of potential funding options that would have resulted in either current levels, the city wide historic survey taking six years and the most expedited request taking two and-a-half years, and it is essentially that more expedited funding level achieved through two means. one, the historic preservation fund committee contributed $200,000 to the effort and the board approved $250,000 a year for two years. in more detail we were seeking $445,000 each year to achieve that timing. we are fully funded for the first year, half funded for the additional staffing for the
second year, and clearly in good position to otherwise leverage additional funding to fully fund the second year as well. thank you and congratulations to the commissioners out there that did a lot of work attempting to advance that successful outcome. on another slightly unusual note, i want to draw your attention to a film in the theaters right now called the last black man of san francisco. the reason i mention it here is that there are two lead characters in the film. i would argue the third is one of our historic resources. the film generally is a bit of a love letter and providing some
insight into the current building of san francisco. there is an interesting preservation component in a theater near you. that may be our first movie review. that is all i have. >> item two. review of past events of the planning commission, staff report and announcements. commission matters three. president's report and announcements. >> no report. >> 4. consideration of adoption of draft minutes for the historic preservation committee meeting of june 19, 2019. >> any member of the public wish to speak on the june 19th minutes? closing public comment. >> move for adoption. >> thank you. on that motion to adopt the
minutes for june 19, 2019. (roll call) so moved. that passes unanimously 5-0. item 5. commission comments and questions. >> i have a disclosure. this morning i had a conversation with the owner of 77d woolly and a member of the mayor's office regarding the same issue. >> i had forgotten, yes, i talked to the mayor's office as well about woolsey. since the last meeting most of you know about the destruction of the murals at the high school. i think it is appropriate for
the hpc to comment publicly, in my opinion, condemn the actions. that is my opinion. ultimately because we don't have any bureaucratic means everylating to the board of education as we try to landmark the george washington high school for the murals and architecture. we don't have any means to do that. i just read yesterday. john gallagher is working to prevent this action from happening for the bol ballot in 2020. i would like t like calendar sog so we could make a public statement. i have been getting e-mails. >> we have an update for you. >> i think we heard about this
after the last commission meeting. we were told the board of education was going to meet the next day. president highland and i wrote the letter to the board of education and to supervisor fewer expressing our concern. to think about having a meeting with the president of the board to figure out what to do to meet with him and express our concerns andtic interest in this. >> i mean many people wrote letters. clearly it fell on deaf ears. is there something more public. many people are e-mailing us saying the hpc should do something. because of the structure of the city we don't have that opportunity. you have had these conversations. i don't know if there is a way
the public can know we express our concerns and somehow get it to the public there are strangle holds that we have relative to the bureaucratic structure of the city. >> i am in support if you want to calder it. >> i don't know what we would do but make a public statement. >> we should calendar it. before that if we could get a conversation or meeting with the president of the board. >> part of that we can get an update on the status. what the action item they took would be informative. >> commissioner black. >> i also want to disclose that i met with the developer at the site of 770 lindsey and i was contacted by the mayor's office
for the same project. >> commissioner jones. >> i received an inquiry from the mayor's office and i went out on my own and inspected the property. >> i might as well say i will be recusing myself for 77woolsey because we did the hre for the developer. i have a current relationship with them. it is an important project. >> seeing nothing further we can move on to item 6 under your consent calendar. >> this is a consent calendar routine by the historic preservation commission. there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the public or staff so requested. at which time it will be removed and considered at a separate
item at this or separate hearing. item 6 for the fulton street adjacent to the asian art museum. >> do you wish to take this off the consent calendar? >> closing public comment. >> any commissioners? that is a no. >> motion to approve the consent calendar. >> second. >> on that motion to approve item 6 commissioner black. (roll call) >> so moved that passes unanimously 5-0 placing us to the regular calendar for items
7a and performed. for 2018-013697coa, 3500 jackson street. the zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. >> the item today is a request for certificate of appropriateness and variance request for 3500 jackson street. it is the landmark 56. it is listed on the national register of historic places. located on the northwest corner of jackson and locust streets. in 1909 they commissioned to build the house. three stories with a basement and has slate covered cabled roof. the proposed project including demolition of an existing garage and construction of a newspaper
larger garage. expansion of the building at the west elevation. new stairs. modification of the carriage way. replacement of chimneys and replacement at all floors. they reviewed the project on mae modifications to the committee's comments. also, the minutes and landmark designation was left out of packets. i provided copies for your reference. staff received one letter of opposition to the project. the first step is demolition of an existing garage constructed in 1982 that required a variance. it is located at the northwest corner of the lot. a new garage will be constructed in approximately the same location and will require
excavation. it will have a roof deck and it will be clad in stucco and wood. the horizontal planter relates to the house. in response to arc the project sponsors proposed wood railings at the roof deck. construction of the garage will require a variance. finally, on this garage level a new door and window will be added and both are compatible with character. the next scope of work is expansion of the west elevation. the new mass will be the new balcony. they sent back the extensions so
the view of the carriage way is geniallgene generally -- generay maintained. the existing windows on the house. the newest elevation stairs would remove a portion of the existing balcony to construct the stairs accessing the rear yard. it is compatible. the sponsors modified the railings to be more compatible with the rest of the house. work in the area also includes a new set of french doors to replace existing windows at the first level. the profile has been modified to address comments and are compatible with existing window profiles. new window openings will be cut at this level to avoid destroying the half timbering.
they are between the existing windows. next is the intell at fourth floor to collect two levels. the shallow roof will be covered. the overall form of the roof is compatible and scale and proportion are min alley visible. they agreed to further analyze the visibility from locust street. next is the port which will be modified with new steps accessing a new side entry. columns are to accommodate the slope. new introduction of steps are compatible and project sponsors added additional steps to retain the existing flow.
however, the decorative posts should not be destroyed. staff recommends additional options. on the west the sloped concrete carriage way will be modified with new stairs. they will be less visible from the public right-of-way and existing grade under the stairs. three chimneys of concrete and stucco are to be removed to provide interior floor space. two of the three chimneys have decorative claps. the third has a singular form. the chimney shaft to be reconstructed in maywood and stucco. it will be entirely reconstructed. they responded by providing a report evaluating the structure. it does retain a portion of the
chimney and removes the historic fabric. staff recommends a mockup before demolition. to receive interior alterations limited to the nonpublic spaces such as basement, kitchen, bedrooms and bathroom and avoid the decorative spaces of the public rooms such as foyer and dining room. it conforms with article 10. it is compatible with the character defining features of the property. staff recommends approval with conditions. first work on the design of the changer way to avoid truncating the columns. mockup of chimneys for staff approval. the project architect is here
and i am happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> i have a question right now. i have one quick question. you said the garage is larger. in what way is it larger? >> it is larger in footprint but not in height. >> one of the concerns of someone who wrote in was about the size. of course, that is a variance issue. thank you. >> project sponsor have a presentation? would five minutes be sufficient? >> we have a full agenda today. >> i am thomas, a partner. thank you for considering this. seeing some of you again and some new members of the hpc. we have made a lot of alterations based on the meeting
we had in may, and i would like to take you through them. we also reached out to the neighbors to discuss the project since then. from locust street, no visible changes. same from jackson street. as mentioned the major rooms you can see the public rooms are untouched. the great spaces will remain as is. you can see in the drawing this is the bulk of the house. the area we are going to change is the kitchen family area here. this is small, but you can see on the left is what is there currently. here is what we would like to propose for the house to make it into a house for a modern family. this is the west elevation which is really mostly hidden from the street. this is the existing conditions. when we were here this did not
mimic what is there currently. the new proposed elevation is here where we made vertical windows divided similar to what may back did with the original house. this shows the section of the stairs cutting down through thee port i co to the lower level. there is a place for the kids here. this is the triangle that connects the two-parts of the hold house together. last we were here it was white stuck co. this is to maintain the profile of the existing roof. just a closeup of the stair area coming through to the driveway. as mentioned the railings which were metal are now wood. we picked up on the proportions and detailing of may beck in the
gothic type details. those were metal before. a have you of the back of the house which is untouched. this is a section through the garage. on this drawing you can see the existing garage. this is the proposed garage with the brackets and this is now a tutor detailed low railing. the height of the garage comes down. a closeup of those details. lastly, the chimneys, there are three chimneys we are going to modify for structural reasons. they will look the same. we hope to keep the existing and build a new place underneath it. we would make mockups to show
you. brackets aren't stable. since we wear h were last sheer one chimflee is back where it was. they -- the chimney is back where it was. one will remain on the structural foundation to the bottom as it is currently. this is a view of the back of the house. you can see it showing the chimneys. we are putting back what is there. that is what we are looking for. >> thank you. you did it. >> good afternoon, commissioners. deputy director eric jacobs on behalf of the project sponsor in defense of the variance request. the roos is at the preservation and has extraordinary circumstances for alterations. the house and garage leave no location for off street parking
or usable open space. the development pattern in the neighborhood i is homes on the multilevel. it was approved. this improved the parking by orients the garage towards locust street not in a manner to establish usable open space. this when create rear yard by transforming the roof to green extending to the bottom of the old jackson street carriage way. this provides the access to the garage. this will be built to fire codes and offer a compatible design. there is a clear precedent drawing from the subject properties and landmark designation. the extraordinary circumstances
by the lot, lack of open space. literal enforcement of 134 result in practical difficulty and hard ship. this predates the planning code and all improvements have been executed by previous owners. it the existing garage has 9360 cubic feet. the proposed is 7127 cubic feet. overall reduction of 23%. the garage is viewed from the nortthe --at the rear of 3505 pc avenue. it is the folks who wrote the letter behind their existing site wall. >> thank you. your time is up. >> we will open up for public
comment. one speaker card. >> president highland, members of the commission, historic preservation commission. i am an attorney. i wrote the letter on behalf of the young family. they were unable to attend today due to a prior commitment. i am here to answer any questions on their behalf and to provide further clarification as to why we wrote the letter. there are two specific issues. one is that unfortunately the case report didn't include any information regarding the city's findings concerning the variance. we felt compelled to have to address the concerns that my client has regarding the adverse effect on the property because
there was no information indicating why the garage needed expanded and why the retraining wall needed further excavated to the rear yard that is going to impact the property at 3505 jackson because they share the retraining wall. those were not addressed. we felt compelled to address those comments for your consideration. the variance goes hand in hand with certificate of appropriateness. while i understand it is focused on the architectural features. we appreciate the applicants concerns to address the concerns. we are concerned about the impacts to add adjacent property and related impacts. with expansion of the garage. i understand it is not going to impact the height from public viewing, it is going to affect
the property at 3505. i wanted to just clarify our comments relate primarily to the variance. i would request the zoning administrator consider the comments prior to your action. if you need further information you might want to continue to evaluate both together. the case report didn't address the variance aspect in connection with theser vivcat of appropriateness. -- the certificate of appropriateness. thank you very much. >> any member of the public wish to speak on this item. i will close public comment and back to the commission. commissioner pearlman. >> i want to comment the architect on the changes from the arc meeting. they all addressed our concerns very well.
in particular, the guardrails at the garage roof and the stairs is a nice design. it does feel come pattedtible to the design of the house. i would endorse this project. i would make a motion to approve this. >> commissioner black. >> i concur. i think the architects responded sensitively to the comments of the arc. the west elevation is significantly improved. the plan makes a lot of sense the way the alternative of the family room they chose. it will be more usable outdoor space for a family. they have been very response i .
>> mr. zoning administrator. >> i want to speak to the fair vance. i can understand the confusion with the case reports. it is standard practice staff did not do case reports for variances. i can understand that issue. just looking at the variance a lot of the rationale raised by the sponsors are legitimate. there was already a variance for the reconstruction of the garage in the 1980. this is larger in footprint and lower in height. it will create usable open space and make the property more code conforming. those are all factors to support the variance. >> commissioner johns. >> has the motion been seconded?
>> i second the motion. >> i have a question on the retaining wall. i don't know if staff knows about this. can you just explain what is happening with the retraining wall? are they replacing the retraining wall? >> how does that happen to the wall that is shared to the neighbors? >> can i refer to the architect on the retaining wall? >> sure. >> i am karl baker. we prepared this slide here. the neighbor's backyard. in december we had a meeting with the neighbor who raised the
question here. we went to the house. we discussed the retraining wall. initially we were thinking they were going to demolish the retraining wall. due to that conversation december 5th. we developed a different strategy. this retaining wall we are going to keep existing retaining wall to guilty us down into the ground and build on the opposite side of that. the new retraining wall. it will all be on our side. the new stucco wall will be replaced with a wood wall to support the roof deck. >> thank you. the only comment i have is on the chimneys. i like the approach. it is better than what was
presented. i would support the motion and the recommendations from staff. i would just go on the record as saying replacement of the chimneys is not preferred. we are not going to want to look at that. there was a comment in the presentation that may be an option. what you have in the keeping of the cap and rebuilding below it is he good approach that we would like to see it happen. >> from is a motion seconded to approve with conditions. (roll call) >> so moved. that motion passes 5-0. i will close public hearing on the variance.
>> item 82017-03745coa, 443 folsom street. a certificate of apappropriateness. >> good afternoon. planning department staff. the project before usa request for certificate of appropriate necessary for 443 folsom street landmark 149 known as edwin's blacksmith shop. it is a two story industrial building designed in revival architectural style. it entails exterior and interior alterations. it is for cannabis retail. the work includes restoration of the front façade based on historic evidence. prepare and replacement of sheet metal at sides.
alterations on top o top of secd exit. following the publication the department has received two letters of support from the public. a letter of support from the sponsor. a copy is available for your review today. the department staff recommends approval with conditions and finds the project to be compatible and consistent with the standards and the designating ordinance. it will ensure the work is under taken in conformance with the certaintive vat and adhere to the report and complete the site visit prior to occupancy to verify compliance. the project sponsor is present and prepared a short presentation. this concludes my presentation.
>> we are hoping for 10 minutes. >> we are rushing things along. if you have issues with the staff recommendations keep it to that. if you don't i would like to keep the presentation to five minutes. >> we will be brief. i am travis kelly the project sponsor for 443 folsom street. we are hoping to bring progress to this building. my family occupied this since the 190s -- 1930s. there is not a tradition for me to continue. we have come to a point where work needs to be dubto preserve -- needs to be done to ensure it is part of the skyline for another century. the owners have a shared goal which is preservation.
with time in mind i pass it on to the architect now, lisa harvey. >> good afternoon. i am lisa harvey. this is the rear portion of the building which is essentially a shed that lets in light but also lets in rain and air. all of these light spaces are actually the sky. there is no floor, currently dirt. the charm of the space is travis' grandfather and great-grandfather. these have been in here for over a hundred years. our approach is to infill the posts and redo the roof, putting in a roof paneling. this is the 1919 original
construction. we will be replacing the front windows on the left, the upper window to match the window on the right and repairing. you can see the conditions of ththe windows and doors that we will replace as need be. on the sides, even they are cobeled together you can barely see the rear portion of the building. we will build a wall behind it so it is a fireproof and safe structural system and replacing the roof in the back. >> very quick detail. with respect to the recommendations we are in full support with every one of them. she mentioned three of the four
conditions. the condition two a doesn't make sense the way it is written. b it is not necessary. we have two analysis that analyzed every square inch. the plans are extraordinarily detailed. there were three. if we need to come back because something needs to change. we will come back. number two seems to send us with a possible professional and analysis. a lot of work is done here. we know what we are to do and we will do it. if there is a change we are coming back to the planning department. home fully we can remove condition two. thank you. >> any member of the public wish to speak to this item? >> closing public comment.
>> this is all most leak pay legacy business. having mr. kelly here and 90 years of family history in the knowledge. building. those are when you are digging a hole in the ground and i might find some remains there. in this case we are not doing that. it does feel like it is excessive. kelly wong's report is down to the brass tacks with the specifics of the head and all of that. there is plenty of information. if there are problems they will address them with the staff. condition two is not that critical. >> can we ask staff to respond
and share why this condition is in there? >> department staff. condition two is recommended in case the conservation report cannot be followed. if there is replacement needed it to to come back for review. >> can it not be followed? >> i am not sure. >> one of the reasons we came up with this condition. we found consistently often times when the field conditions and contractor gets to the field, new things pop-up all of the time. given how precious the materials are in this case we want to be sure everything is going to followed accordingly. we essential "glee" miss bong's report is extremely sure row. this is assurance if something
pops up we are able to check back to what is going to happen. >> if i could just restate what i understand. condition three if you find additional replacement needed staff will review it. condition two the intent is that the additional work needs done that it be done at the guidance of a qualified professional. >> both. we get a call by a professional or they check back with the staff on the right approach. >> what is missing i in if we te out two is who directs the additional work. >> that is in number three. >> three is related to the doors
and windows and two is related to the structure. i think perhaps two could be rewritten so that it is clear this is only if something comes up then a professional is required. maybe that is what you intended. maybe it could be reworded. >> if something comes up, what we are asks is that the guidance be done under the direction of qualified conservation professional. >> is that correct? >> yes.
>> do you have a suggestion? >> how about i guess one of the questions who determines whether it is necessary? >> that is why i think it is redundant. it is going to come to the staff no matter what. if it is an issue the staff can't handle themselves they would have an additional consultant. >> if additional replacement of cladding or frames is required that exceeds the conservation report or other items in need of additional repair and replacement, the project sponsor shall notify staff and appropriate direction will be given. how about that? >> fine.
>> here is what i will read back. if additional replacement or cladding or framing required that compeds the conservation report and other items are in need every placement they shall notify staff and appropriate methods will be suggested. >> would that be okay? >> yes. >> on the drawings we show repair everything some of the windows and doors in the front. they are not mentioned in the conservation report. if you look at them, it seems impossible anybody could repair them. we can spend thousands of dollars. i think we will find for example one of the doors needs rebuilt. we don't want to have to hire another person. we would like to bring in
pictures to show you, look at this. >> i don't want to debate the quality. >> what is our responsibility to replace a window? do we have to hire an expert when it is not in the report? >> the staff can make a judgment. the staff has the qualifications to be able to make that judgment. >> correct. >> i just don't want there to be automatically there would be another consultant brought in. that is a problem for the sponsor and it is expensive. >> we understand field conditions and reports are a moment in time. things pop-up in the field. it helps weigh expense versus appropriate treatment given the rarity of the resource. we want the right assurances
written in the proposal. >> do we have the wording for it? >> was that the writing of familiar two. >> does the project sponsor feel that is okay? okay. we got there. >> i will make a motion to approve the ca with modification of condition number two. >> second. >> seeing nothing further, there is a motion to approve this matter with conditions as amended and read in the record. commissioner black. (roll call) >> is moved that passes 5-0. item 9. 2019.
005599 c.u.a. 970 tennessee street. this is a request for certificate of appropriate necessary for 970 tennessee street in the dogpatch district. it is one story withi with the industrial building. it was reexposed due to demolition of 950 tennessee street. the project would be limited to modifying two openings on the largely blank north elevation and installing four new openings. in total the department has received letters in opposition from three members of the public and expressed concerns the introduction would diminish the character of the building. the windows face future residential work and the work
>> this letter is written to serve as confirmation of support and approval for the above-noted subject project with proposed improvements that would be beneficial elements as the plan mid passage which would be bordered by the north wall of 970 tennessee. new windows would break out the playing of the existing walcott the in full -- existing wall, the infill -- further because
existing openings are irregular in shape and extend to floor level, the new openings provide a more consistent elevation. they will be above i level, which is more appealing to both properties and i will submit this letter as part of the record. no further report. >> great. thank you. let's open this up to public comment. would any member of the public wish to speak to this agenda item? okay. closing public comment. commissioners? >> i just had one question for staff. the e-mail that was received notes that they didn't think the notice was appropriate about what the hearing today was. can you speak to that? >> her initial e-mail, she was
concerned that it was not posted within 30 days of the hearing. i explained that the requirements are 20 days. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i think this is a perfectly appropriate project and move to approve the project. >> second the motion. >> thank you. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with -- just to prove this matter. on that motion... [roll call] so moved, the motion motion passed unanimously 5-0. item ten, 220 post street, this is a permit to alter. >> good afternoon, commissioners application before you now is a request for a major permit to alter for the property of 220 post street. a category four contributory
building located within the kearny market conservation district. the property is developed with a five story commercial building constructed in approximately 1907. his primary façade runs on post street, though the rear yard encampment façade is notable for its intact cast-iron piles at the base of the building which are proposed to be retained. the project entails refurbishment and retention of existing windows, replacement of nonhistoric storefronts at both façades within the existing openings and work at the roof level. this rooftop work would entail installation of a new central skylight, a roof deck with glazed railing, and a new stare and elevator penthouses. only portions of the railing and new penthouses will be visible from a long camped in place, looking -- with no visibility from post street. all scopes of work other than those of the roof level were previously analysed under minor permits to alter and remain virtually unchanged. the department has received no public correspondence regarding
the project. given the limited visibility of new rooftop features, the setback provided for the new penthouses and the fact that the visible penthouses are fairly common within the district, staff has determined that the proposed work will be in conformance with requirements outlined in appendix d. and e. of article 11 of the planning code. the secretary in standards and will be compatible with the character and finding features of the conservation district. based on this analysis, staff therefore recommends approval with one following condition. as part of the building permit and limitation, the project sponsor shall provide final material samples to department staff for review and approval. this concludes my presentation. the project architect is in attendance, although it does not plan to present, but will -- but both they and i are happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i have a very quick question, and maybe the architect can answer this. on the kempton place elevation, there is one window on the
entire façade that is longer than all of the others. i am wondering if anyone knows why that is. >> i was not able to figure it out. i don't know if the architect has any idea. >> i had to look at this two and three times a look at the photo to be sure. >> the architect does not know, either. >> thanks. >> it is all it because it lines with everything except the bottom. i don't know. >> very good. would any member of the public wish to comment on this item? okay. closing public comment. move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve this motion with conditions... [roll call]
so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. item 11, 77 -- 770 wolsey street this is a landmark designation. >> i will need to recuse myself. i need a motion. >> i move that you be allowed to recuse yourself. >> i second. >> i guess i mentioned earlier in disclosures, but i have a relationship with the company that wrote the h.r.e. for the project. >> on the motion to recuse commissioner hyland... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. you are hereby recused. >> powerpoint, please.
thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. michel taylor, planning department staff. the item before you today is consideration of whether to add 770 wolsey street to the landmark designation work program. it was nominated through a community sponsored landmark application submitted on behalf of the friends of 770 woolsey street. the landmark designation report was prepared by stacy far. the property owner, 140 partners l.p., is currently applying for a permit to construct residential units on the site. the property owner is not supportive of the proposed landmark designation. staff would like to note that in addition to the approximately 96 letters of support included in the case report for today's hearing, the department has received one support letter and five opposition letters to the proposed landmark nomination. located in the portola district
of the excelsior neighborhood, 770 woolsey street occupies one full city block bound by wayland street to the north, woolsey street to the south, hamilton street to the east, and bowed and street to the west. the properties are the former sight of a family owned flower nursery in operation from 1921 to 1990. this 2.2-acre site includes 18 greenhouse buildings, organized into two rose, and although the greenhouses were built over several decades between 1921 and 1951, they are already woodframe structures with gable roofs and feature similar massing, orientation, and design. additional buildings on the property include a one-story woodframe boiler house constructed circa 1922, and a