Comment is called for the item you are interested in speaking to. For those persons calling in to submit their testimony, you need to call area code 415 a6550001 and enter access code. 26606777732 and press pound twice. Youll then need to wait for the item youre interested in speaking to and for Public Comment to be announced. To comment you need to enter star three to raise your hand once youve raised your hand, youll hear a prompt stating that you have raised your hand to ask a question. Please wait to speak until the host calls on you. When you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. Best practices are to call from a quiet location and please mute the volume on your television or computer for those persons attending in person in city hall, please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. Finally, ill ask that we all silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And now i would like to take royal commission. President matsuda here. Commission Vice President nageswaran here. Commissioner foley. High commissioner vergara here and commissioner right here. Thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is general Public Comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items. Your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. Again if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no requests to speak under general Public Comment, it is closed and we can move on to department matters. Item one department announcements. Good afternoon, commissioners. Rick Sucre Department staff. Just wanted to provide you an update on your landmark designation work program, the Parkside Branch library and the columbo arch are both on their way to becoming our next city landmarks. The columbo arch is just waiting for signature from the mayor, so we will have two more new landmarks added to our long list of work that we have been working on. I also wanted to provide you an update that last week we had the opportunity to present the San Francisco survey in front of San Francisco heritage and the meeting went well. We are working towards establishing a partnership with heritage on the San Francisco survey to kind of better assist in the efforts we are planning to come back to you in december for with our first round of findings is focused on the inner sunset. So that way then you will get a full update on all of the activity from sf survey as well as what weve been doing to date for the last couple of years. So happy to answer any questions and this concludes my report. Thank you. Okay. If there are no questions for mr. Sucre, we can move on to commission matters item to consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for september 20th, 2023 and the draft minutes for october 4th, 2023. Commissioners for the october 4th, 2023. There is a typo and so we are we would like you to adopt amended minutes. Basically on the october 4th minutes for items five and six. Commissioner rights commissioner wright was indicated as a vote nay when he was actually absent. So we would just simply ask that you adopt them with that correction and at this time members of the public, it is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no requests to speak, commissioners Public Comment is closed and the minutes are now before you motion to approve with the with the correction. Second. Thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes as corrected. Commissioner vergara yes, commissioner wright. Yes. Commissioner foley. I commissioner warren. Yes president matsuda yes. So move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0 and well place this on item three commission comments and questions. Any comments or questions from the commission . Commissioner wright. Yes, i would like to just announce to everyone that i participated in a conference last week. Its the apt conference, which is the association for preservation technology, ag and thats an International Oil preservation technique, Oil Preservation organization. And i had the privilege of meeting and i had met him before, but working closely with and talking with john sander of the National Park service. And he let me know that they the nps has just the week before. Published an update to preservation brief number 16 on substitute materials, which which he then incorporate into some of his discussion and presentations in in a wood workshop that i participated in, as well as a symposium on composite materials. At the end of the conference and composite assemblies that tended to be a little more modern architecture focused, but i thought it would be helpful for everyone to know that there is an update to that. Thats now on the nps website. Thats great. Thank you very much for sharing that. Any other comments or questions from the commission . Seeing none, we can move on. I actually do have a couple of announcements. Hans baldauf is was confirmed by the board of supervisors some time ago and will be joining us when he returns to the country after thanksgiving. And. Amy campbell was was moved forward from rules committee to the full board. So there is an outside chance that she may be able to join us november 1st at the earliest. Finally yesterday at the board of supervisors, they voted to no longer accept remote Public Comment with except option to advance requests for a reasonable accommodation. Oh, i see. Wow. Thats a big change. Big change. Um commissioners that will place us now under consideration of items proposed for continuance item for case number 2019 hyphen 017325coa for the property at 109 liberty street certificate of appropriateness is proposed for continuance to december six, 2023 and item five case number 2021 hyphen 010176. Koa at 2259 through 2261 fillmore street a certificate of appropriateness is proposed for indefinite continuance. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on either of the two items proposed for continued use only on the matter of continuance. Again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no request to speak, commissioners, your continuance calendar is now before you. Is there a motion motion to approve . Second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue items as proposed. Commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner wright. Yes. Commissioner foley i. Commissioner warren. Yes. And Commission President matsuda yes. Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 and places us on your consent calendar. There were no items on your consent calendar, so we can move on to your regular calendar for item items. Six a and b for case numbers. 2023 hyphen 008838 lbr r and 2023 hyphen 008839 lbr for the properties at 599 castro street and 916 kearney street respectively. These are legacy business registry applications. Hello commissioners elena moore, planning staff. We have two legacy businesses before you today. Staff will give their presentations and afterwards members of the public and business representatives will have a chance to share their stories during Public Comment. Thank you. Hello, maggie dong, planning staff the first legacy business application that is before you is for ty house, a 38 year old business on castro and 19th street in the castro neighborhood. Ty house is a family run restaurant that serves authentic thai cuisine. Some of their dishes include crispy money bags, sweet and tangy pad thai and rich coconut curries. The restaurant was founded by husband and wife suraphol and krissha marie, who immigrated to the United States from thailand in 1982. In 1985, they opened their first restaurant, thai house, and it was located at 151 norway street. At the time, there were approximately 20 thai restaurants in San Francisco. Throughout the years, the family opened several thai restaurants, thai house restaurants in duboce triangle, castro and the tenderloin. Currently, thai house is run by katya and her son suraphol. The business is committed to safeguarding their thai cuisine dishes, housemade sauces and exterior channel letters. Staff supports this application and recommends a resolution to add thai house to the legacy business registry. This concludes my presentation and my colleague lizzie will present the next legacy business application. Thank you. Good afternoon, elizabeth mao, planning staff. The second legacy business application. We have is for earwax productions, a 40 year old sound Design Studio located at the sentinel building at 916 kearney street earwax production was founded in 1983 by a group of composers, electronic musicians and journalists who found a niche providing sound design to local bay area theater companies. Today, their sound Design Projects range from major hollywood features to mobile apps and from animation to Interactive Museum installations as earwax productions also helped create some of the some of the first audio tours with the antenna theater beginning with the liberty ship. Ss jeremiah obrien, the aquarium at the California Academy of sciences and the de young museum. Earwax productions have has received numerous awards and accolades, including honors in the bay area critics circle awards. Northern California Broadcasters Association of independents in radio as well as contributing to an Academy Award for Francis Ford Coppolas production of bram stokers dracula. Since its founding, the business has worked with local filmmakers, artists and inventors. Earwax productions is committed to maintaining its sound Design Studio and the highest quality and innovation in audio and audio technologies. Its staff supports this application in and recommends a resolution to add earwax productions to the legacy business registry. This concludes the legacy business presentations and staff are available for questions. Thank you. Thank you. We should open up Public Comment members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on either of these two legacy business registry applications. Again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. So seeing no requests to speak commissioners Public Comment is closed and these two legacy business registry applications are now before you. Commissioners. Commissioner burger. As is always the case with legacy business applications, its great that the owners of these businesses care as much about being part of the citys tradition as they do. And so im all for it. And also was really interested to read the history of the Recording Studio at the sentinel building, beginning with the kingston trio, which my mom and dad saw back at the hungry i back in the late 1950s. So good luck to both of those businesses. Thank you, commissioner. Right yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to thank both of these businesses for their applications and for their debt, dedication to the community and to the city. I had not previously been familiar with the earwax productions, but i have lived near the thai house and regularly eat there. So good food. Everyone thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the commission . Commissioner foley . Im just im just happy youre all here. And ive actually eaten there a lot too. And i like your place. Thank you. Do i hear a motion from the commission . Motion to approve second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt recommendations for approval. Commissioner vergara. Yes. Commissioner wright. Yes. Commissioner foley. I. Commissioner warren. Yes. Commissioner. President matsuda yes. So move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. Commissioner as i was remiss in including item seven under your continuance calendar, we do have a request to continue this matter to november 15th for item seven. Case number 2023 hyphen 001148 coa at 945 to 947 minnesota street a certificate of appropriateness proposed for continuance to november 15th, 2023 members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on item sevens request for continuance to november 15th. Only on the matter of continuance. Good afternoon, commission. Thanks very much for your consideration on this matter. Im the next door neighbor who got the previous permit revoked and the coa also went along with it. So id like to offer my comment for the hearing. However ill be out of town on the 15th through the 28th. Im requesting to schedule it two weeks or so later after the other request. Thank you for your consideration. So commissioners, if you wanted to consider a later date for the continuance, it would be sounds like youre back in december, sir. Ill be back in november. Right. So youre back in december. So for the december 1st or excuse me, sixth, december 6th, will you be here for the december 6th. So last call for Public Comment on the matter of continuance for item seven. So seeing no request to speak Public Comment is closed and this matter is now before you motion to continue to december 6th, second. Thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue. Item seven to december 6th. Commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner wright. Yes. Commissioner foley i. Commissioner warren. Yes. And commissioner. President matsuda yes. So move commissioners on motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0, placing us on item eight for case number 2023 hyphen 008250 pca and map for the nonprofit Arts Education special use district planning code and zoning map amendments. I understand we have two requests for recusal. Commission commissioner negus warren yes, im going to request to be recused. I am a salaried salaried employee of fort mason center, a nonprofit at fort mason center, has a claim related to the sfa i bankruptcy and so there would be a conflict of interest under the state political reform act administered by the Fair Political Practices Commission and San Francisco Municipal Campaign and government conduct code 3. 207. And im and i request recusal. Thank you. Commissioner wright. Yes i also request recusal from this item. The company that i work for in private practice. This is a preservation consultant to a potential buyer and the team considering the project that is. Kind of the source of this. This item. Thank you. Is there a motion to recuse commissioners nageswaran and wright . Motion to recuse. Commissioner horn and wright and ill second that. Thank you, commissioners on that motion to recuse commissioners wright and nageswaran commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner wright yes. Commissioner foley i. Commissioner warren. Yes. And Commission President matsuda yes. So move commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. And unfortunately we are put into the situation where we have lost a quorum for this matter and cannot actually continue a hearing on this even to continue the matter. Okay so there is the opportunity that because of our a sixth commissioner may be sat on november 1st. There is the potential of a postpone, but otherwise the item will move forward without a recommendation from the Historic Preservation commission. Are there. Is there a suggestion by the Commission Secretary about what we. Theres really nothing we can do, unfortunately, because we have two recusals. Weve lost a quorum. So at the very most we could move on. We could postpone it until. Well, i mean, its going to be postponed. No matter what. Yeah, its a matter of whether or not theres enough time to for it to be heard by the Historic Preservation commission before the 90 day deadline is met. So at this point, theres really nothing we can do except for moving on on the next item with your agenda, itll just go straight to the board. Well, no, the Planning Commission needs to consider it, but then it goes to the board of the plan. Then it would go to the board. Okay commissioners, item nine, case number 2016. Hyphen 013156. Sr v hyphen zero three for the Citywide Historic context statement art, architecture, planning and preservation professionals a collection of bias trophies. This is for your consideration to adopt modify or disapprove. Thank you. There we go. Thank you. Yes. Can we go to the presentation . Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Hello, commissioners. Elena moore, Planning Department staff. Today i am bringing the architecture, planning and preservation professionals a collection of biographies as document before you for adoption. I previously presented this document before you in may of 2022, and since then weve conducted further outreach for the project and have updated the document accordingly. Multiple people have contributed to this document, including myself, Melanie Bishop and former staff member brandon gunn. So first ill go over the project introduction. Ill go over a sample biography. The accompanying evaluative frameworks, and finally the implications of this project for the sf survey effort. So as a reminder, sf survey is a multiyear effort to identify and to record places and resources of cultural, historical and architect importance to various communities. In San Francisco. It is a multifaceted project with fieldwork accompanying historic evaluations, Community Engagement and Community Outreach among many other steps and a really important part of the sf survey effort is the Citywide Historic context statement, which is a collection of documents that form the foundation for Decision Making by providing a comprehensive framework for identifying and evaluating historic and cultural resources. So we have thematic documents s that form the Citywide Historic context statement, like the Panama Pacific International exposition document, we have architectural documents such as Victorian Era styles, and we have cultural context such as the draft African American Historic Context statement. And todays document falls into the architectural category. We. So for this project we have researched and written over 350 biography is focused on figures who have impacted the built environment of San Francisco. These figures are varied, including architects, builders, contractors, developers, planners, preservationists and more. And the document also includes an evaluative framework that will be used to determine the level of significance for these professionals and this is really crucial information when staff is working on historic evaluations of properties throughout the city. So so today only the evaluative framework is being considered for adoption. The biographies will exist as a constantly evolving draft document that will be shared publicly at and we have a project website where well post these documents and where members of the public can access this information and submit any names or other information that theyd like us to add. So this document serves as a guide to assigning significance to various architecture and building professionals. One of the primary goals of this project is to tell a broader and more inclusive story of the city of San Franciscos architectural heritage. And so this is a really focused effort to expand the stories that we include in this architectural history and to make this history richer with new information drawn from a variety of Community Members. And so accordingly, we have written biographies for many builders and contractors that were not previously recorded in the departments information. And weve created evaluative frameworks with distinct considerations for our women architects and architects with cultural, racial or ethnic associations as part of this effort, we have also elected to no longer use the term master architect due to the terms associations with the accreditation of one architect for the work of many moving forward, the department will use the term architect of merit or builder of merit, developer of merit and so forth. The Department Hopes that by using these new terms, conversations around significance will expand and will result in greater recognition and diversity within the departments recognized Historic Resources. So ill just briefly go over one biography. As i mentioned, there are over 350 and those are all available, all online in their draft form. So this slide shows worley wong, who was a 20th century chinese american architect who practiced in the second bay tradition. His work can be found in chinatown in residential parts of the city, and in surrounding suburbs in the north bay and east bay. Throughout the architect biographies project, we actually uncovered project that the city hadnt previously recorded on him, such as buddhas Universal Church in chinatown and so this is just an example of the importance of this project in gathering additional projects for figures that might not have been previously celebrated in architectural history. So as i mentioned, the document includes a distinct set of evaluative framework types. And the first is a general set of considerations to look at when determining if a professional rises to the level of architect or builder of merit. So some of the considerations include craftsmen, ship, career tenure, qualified relations, education on so questions that staff might ask themselves when reviewing these figures would be did their did they practice during a significant period of development in San Francisco . Were they cited as a creator or influencer of a significant bay area architecture style . And as a note, education level will not preclude any professional from being listed as an architect or builder of merit. Its simply one of a number of considerations. As and so if the professional fits into any of these above categories, they might be eligible for architect of merit status and their work will warrant further consideration under criterion c or three, not all works by an architect of merit will automatically qualify for eligibility. So this framework also includes considerations for how to evaluate an architect of merits. Body of work. So we also created an evaluative framework for architects with racial, cultural or ethnic group associations. And when using these frameworks, all of the frameworks, its essential to treat each professional as an individual with a distinct professional and personal experience and these are simply suggested questions that staff can consider to help expand the diversity of people lifted up in San Franciscos architectural history and to help look beyond which professions are covered in most traditional architectural history, accounts of the city. So for this category, some of these considerations include general questions of career tenure, but also whether the professionals were contributed to the history of a racial or Cultural Group in San Francisco, whether they were a rare practitioner owner from their Cultural Group during the period that they were working in, whether they used their skills to assist their Community Group and whether they were covered in media accounts and the rest of the considerations are outlined in the case report. Those are just a few of the questions that staff might ask themselves. We similarly developed a tailored framework for identif defying female architects of merit and department biographies of female professionals were also lacking before the start of this project. And so weve now written many of these bios trophies and have gathered and are continuing to gather submissions from Community Members. So here the considerations in the evaluative framework include general questions of career tenure and caliber of projects as well as rarity in profession. For instance, was this professional one of a small number of female practitioners working during their time . Were they one of the rare women working in real estate during the late 19th century . And once again, if the professional fits into these categories, they might be eligible for architect of merit status and then we would accordingly only evaluate their body of work. So today i wanted to also add to the presentation by explaining how its going to connect with our sf survey effort and how well be able to use this information. So the information from this project, including the biographical information and the projects lists for feeds into our Digital Survey database arches, which weve presented before you, before her and this data upload process is in the works. So eventually all of the information that was gathered by staff and by Community Members will be publicly accessible in arches. So once the project is complete, youll be able to see an architect or builders entire portfolio across the city as well as connections to other professional journals, connections to design firms and connections to schools or educational institutes as so i have a photo here that kind of shows an example of this information on arches. So this is focused on the builder alfonzo harrington. You can see on the left hand side, this is a screenshot from arches that shows the kind of information that you can see about our people. And so we have their birth and death date biographical information. Then theres a place to record their cultural association. And then on the right hand side, you can see this network of all of the projects that are associated with this builder. And so you can click on this builder and this kind of network pops up with all of these projects. And if you click onto one of the addresses is then maybe if there was a Landscape Architect associated with that project, theyll pop up as well. And you get this really complete picture of all the kinds of people that were impacting the built environment of San Francisco. So a few last thoughts before i conclude the presentation. As mentioned in the staff report, we have finished up our dedicated outreach to Community Members, including sending out this case report for noticing before the hearing. But as i mentioned, we will always continue to accept new submissions for new information, new architects, new builders on our project website and this will continue to be a living document that will be in draft form at and as a side note, because as this is a living document, i just want to note that an omission of an architect from the current draft list does not suggest that they are not a figure of importance. We have been collecting these biographies as they come up in projects or if they were already recorded in Historic Context statements. So there are still many, many left to complete. And i just wanted to note that so this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. Thank you. Very good. Commissioners. Oh, sorry. Should we have Public Comment first . We should open up public. Yes unless there are pressing questions. I dont think so. Doesnt look like well have much anyway. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. If youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no requests to speak Public Comment is closed and now , commissioners, you may. Thank you, commissioner foley. So i think its great. I think this work is really impressive. I love the fact that its all online. I love the fact that you can actually go search it. I just think its really super. The only thing id like to see done someday is my little pet thing. Qr codes. Qr codes. So ill, ill bring those up with a other people in the future. But this is really great and just the way you can actually see all the information is super great. And i know we couldnt we didnt have the nonprofits Art Education use district in front of us. But the work that you all did and the speed you did it in is really great and its really appreciative. So thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner vergara id just like to echo what commissioner foley said and thank you for your your detail, the research that you did and the great detail in presentation is just amazing. And something that i hope youre proud of. We certainly are. I was doing some research on the state website of California Historical resources, and it doesnt hold a candle to the work that you do. Thank you, commissioner angus warren. Thank you. I know you were talking about ms. Moore you were talking about using previous contact statements to draw upon. And i think youre already doing this, but also previous hires that have been written on that. I know having written a few of them myself, there were some obscure things that i would always find or are probably repetitive things i was finding. So this is a huge you know, resource and improvement on a system and its going to be an example for other communities across california and the country. I think. And just to reiterate, the number of women that are in architecture or the or built, you know, building profession, a number of years ago, the aia American Institute of architects did a study. And although the students in architecture schools were comprised of 50 women and 50 men, even from the time that i went to architecture school, more than 30 years ago, it it it is still the fact that only 15 get licensed. But theres a number of women that are as talented as anybody thats licensed and also those who are licensed that are not given credit. I would also encourage going to different firms as and having them provide lists of their employees. And, you know, its a timely thing to do because theres a lot of older firms that have been around a really long time that might be able to give you a great deal of Research Information on on who worked on what projects and so that would be wonderful. And i do appreciate the inclusivity of this document. I would like to go away from using the terms color when referring to people, because i always think of people as having a background in a culture rather than a color. I think colors tend to be kind of very vague and subjective and whereas using the terms of their actual origin is an important part of telling the full story of where they came from, what their contribution is, and the overall picture of San Francisco, which is a hugely Diverse Group of people that has evolved over time and had an impression upon in not only our city but across the country. The way that we see people and how we deal with them. So i appreciate that. Id also like to echo the commissioners comments about how comprehensive and inclusive this document is. I particularly like the section where you identified a particular individual and then provided the analysis about why they may not be an architect of merit and why they are because it allows people to be able to further document if that needs to be challenged or it needs to be further explored. And then, you know, allows, i think, a more inclusive of discussion that these people were definitely at least recognized. And here are the reasons and thats thats a very important and i dont think a lot of documents do that. So i really appreciate that that particular aspect of it. And then i really for people who are not in the know and dont understand or have no historical background about who an architect, which architect designed a particular part of the neighborhood, i really liked this visual that your arches is providing because it allows people of any, i think , educational level or any linguistic level and just anyone , anyone who particularly those who are not so familiar with the built environment to see who who created their their house and how important that is to the overall, i guess, environment and community of San Francisco. So thank you for really thinking at all levels so that this document can have an impact and can be appreciated by many. Oh oh commissioner. Right. Yeah i just wanted to tack on to what president masuda was saying with regard to peoples ability to kind of understand and what were finding and the research that were gaining or the information that were gaining and i think maybe to kind of connect it a little bit further once its made its way into arches, then it it will eventually make its way to the Property Information map. Is that correct . Where its another way for people to click on a parcel and learn about the building or the parcels history. Elena more planning staff yeah. I just want to note that its actually in, in him right now already, so thats kind of our first step in the process was uploading the spreadsheet with all of the parcel numbers and all of that information into him so staff can already start to use it when theyre working on projects and then we had a summer intern that was working on getting all the data into arches. Thank you. Thats great. Not a fun project. Its fun. We appreciate that summer intern. Yes, definitely. Yes. Okay. Any other comments from the commission. Would anyone care . We have a anybody, any commissioners would like to make a motion to adopt. Ill move to adopt second, seeing no further discussion, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt at the Citywide Historic context statement. On that motion, commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner wright yes. Commissioner foley i. Commissioner nougat warren. Yes. And Commission President matsuda yes. So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0, and well place this on the final item on your agenda today. Number ten for the Housing Projects and state laws, informational presentation. I have some printouts to. We know gov can we go to the presentation please. Good afternoon, president matsuda and members of the commission. Kate connor, manager of housing implementation programs with the Planning Department. Its a pleasure to be here today. Today im going to provide an overview of the state density bonus law and the San Francisco review process. I will also discuss the intersection with the housing accountability act and the effect that state laws may have on the Historic Preservation commission. Discretion. So the state density bonus law was established by the state of california in 1979 as an Incentive Based Program for providing on site affordable units. The program does have certain eligibility criteria, namely the project must contain five units or more. It must be residential or mixed use, and it must provide affordable units on site for a period of 55 years. If those units are also counting toward San Franciscos Inclusionary Program, those units must remain affordable for life of the project. So the density bonus has three components. Theres the density, bonus incentives and concessions, and then finally waivers is the amount of density bonus is dependent upon the number of affordable units and the level of affordability in proposed in the project. If you provide more affordable units, the project is entitled to additional density in order to accommodate that additional density. A project may need relief from code requirements and that relief can come in the form of incentives and concessions or waivers. So what is an incentive or concession . An incentive or concession must reduce the cost of the project. This can be a Development Standard and can include such planning code requirements as permitted obstructions, height and ground floor ceiling height. The number is limited between 1 and 4, and that is dependent upon the provided affordability in the project. So if we consider an example, lets look at ground floor ceiling height, reducing that ground ground floor ceiling height requirement. It may reduce the overall height of the project and that could affect the construction type and therefore reduce the cost of the project. So the city is incredibly limited in its discretion and can only deny an incentive or a concession if it does not result in actual cost reductions, or if it would have a specific adverse impact on Public Health or safety or or on a resource that is listed on the california register as defined by state law. So what is a waiver . A waiver is an exception to a Development Standard. These are mainly volumetric requirements that are necessary to accommodate the project with the increased density and any of the requested incentives and concessions as examples can include height, bulk or rear yard for a project may require relief from the height requirement in order to accommodate those Additional Units as you may have noticed, i also included height as a potential for an incentive or concession. So how do we determine which one it falls into . We actually have to look at every project individually. The same code requirement could either be an incentive or a waiver, depending upon the specifics of a project that weve seen height as an incentive and high Rise Construction where the extra height may not be needed. But but project sponsors do demonstrate that it does reduce the overall cost of the project. But again, the city is incredibly limited in its discretion and can only deny a waiver if it is deemed unnecessary or would have a specific adverse impact upon Public Health or safety or Historic Resource resources listed on the california register. So what is the intersection with San Franciscos Inclusionary Program . Um, lets consider a 100 unit based project that if the on site inclusionary rate is 20, then that project is automatically entitled to a density bonus. Under state law. Although those bonus units must remain as a market rate and the number of affordable units remain the same. In San Francisco, we do apply the Affordable Housing fee. And how this works is by applying the fee to the entire project and providing credits for the on site units. So given the complexities surrounding state density, bonus law, the department has published planning director bulletin six implementing the state density bonus law. This bulletin details all of San Franciscos interpretations, including how we apply state density bonus in form based districts, which was something that state law did not originally contemplate. The bulletin also details how we process state density bonus project s for conventional state density bonus projects. The Commission Must make findings as to whether the project has a specific adverse impact on Public Health or safety, as defined by state law. And these are not discretionary determinations. If there is an underlying entitlement like a conditional use authorization or a large project authorization, the process will remain the same. However, the citys discretion is incredibly limited in those instances. Finally, state density bonus in and of itself does not affect sequa review. So the same statement i keep repeating as far as the limited discretion and if there is any sort of specific adverse impact on Public Health or safety or on a Historic Resource that is listed on the california register, i want to go over kind of what that definition is for Historic Resource. It must be listed on the california register being eligible for the california register. Does not afford the same protections for this particular finding. Even if a property is an article 10 or 11 property. If it isnt listed on the california register, there arent those same protections under these findings. And then also, like many of you are familiar with what the department determines to be kind of a category a building in terms of Historic Preservation and that can include article ten, article 11. It can also include national or state register, but they can also include buildings that are of a particular age. And so just to kind of reiterate, the only kind of projects that were looking at here are those that are listed on the california register. For so the language also states that there cannot be a specific adverse impact. And so this would occur where there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low income or moderate income households. And so an example of like an adverse impact that we can think of is demolition. So then how does state density bonus intersect with the housing accountability act . The housing accountability act was established in 1982, and it limits local jurisdictions ability to deny or reduce the density of a code compliant project. If a project requires a variance or an exception, it is not considered to be code compliant. That being said, the housing accountability act does recognize state density bonus projects, including all the exceptions that they may get in the form of incentives, concessions or waivers as being code compliant in. Projects only have to comply with objective standards to invoke the housing accountability act be two thirds residential and consist of two units or more. And then if a jurisdiction wrongly denies a Housing Project that jurisdicao may be subject to fines of up to 10,000 per unit due to recent amendments to the housing accountability act. So how do these two laws affect Planning Commission discretion in . And then ill get into the hpc discretion as well. So most of the state density bonus projects are subject to the housing accountability act. Weve received well over 100 state density bonus projects now. So i think our Planning Commission is becoming more used to seeing them before them here. You know, again, the discretion is incredibly limited. We cant deny or reduce the density of the projects that are subject to the housing accountability act and further, the city cannot deny the waivers, incentives or concessions unless they make those specific adverse impact on Public Health or safety findings. In addition, there has also been recent case law that reaffirms that state density bonus projects can include amenities even if those amenities require a waiver of Development Standards. So even if the department or the commission can redesign a project so that it maintains that density, it maintains that number of units, we are still incredibly limited in our our discretion and we would not be able to deny a waiver thats associated with any amenity thats related to the project. So kind of essentially, if it complies with state density bonus, that project as designed is whats before you. And were very limited in being able to move massing or make adjustments to it. So how do these laws affect Historic Preservation commission discretion for certificates of appropriateness and permits to alter only objective requirements can be applied. A denial of a certificate of appropriate ness or a permit to alter based upon subjective determinations is not allowed under the housing accountability act unless there is a specific adverse impact to a Historic Resource that is listed on the california register. Discretion again, is incredibly limited. And as discussed earlier, this is a pretty high bar. So now for a couple really exciting definitions, owns. All right, so a specific adverse impact is defined as a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective identified, written Public Health or safety standards, policies or conditions that existed on the date. The application was deemed complete. And then also objective standards. So the objective standards are those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criteria, an available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent as well as the public official. So again, state density bonus projects, including all those requested waivers and incentives , are considered to be code compliant in meeting those objective standards as. So what can we do to ensure that preservation goals are taken into consideration when discretion is so limited . And i think the answer really is creating more objective standards. So we looked at the Historic Preservation Commission Motion that delegates the minor scopes of work to the Planning Department, and it contains a couple of examples of objective standards, specific, i believe its scope 21 regarding accessory dwelling units. That has some good examples for something that would be objective. I think it states that the materials must match and the windows must also match the size, shape and material. So instead of relying on a subjective determination based upon context, its very directive and it doesnt allow for that subjective judgment. Also, the Planning Department is currently working on creating an objective Design Standards, and this is part of the Housing Element rezoning effort. And the one thing too, i did want to touch upon, i think theres also always been some consternation around creating objective Design Standards adds, considering that you could potentially waive them under state density bonus. The one thing i would like to offer in particular for the Historic Preservation commission is that if you do come up with objective standards that are really more design based, those would likely fall into an incentive or concession category because theyre not affording the project Additional Units or density and therefore your incentives and concessions are much more limited based upon the affordability fauci so if you had something for siding or windows or roof pitch or whatever it might be, if a project sponsor did want to get out of those, they would only have so many to play with. And then finally, i did want to close by saying that i think this has really been a really big adjustment, not only for all of our commissions, but i think also just for planning staff having to do all of our plan checks. I do hope that this presentation helps provide you a general overview, and im definitely available for questions. Thank you a lot to take in indeed. At this time we should take Public Comment or at least afford it. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. If youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. Commissioners Public Comment is closed and this informational item is now before you. Thank you, commissioners. Commissioner nageswaran. Um so i wanted to know how many of the san franciscans of San Franciscos buildings are on the california register. Kate connor Planning Department staff. I actually dont know that exact number. I dont know, rich if you might happen to know. I dont have the number off the top of my head, but we have it mapped and so we have the information in our database. Yes. Ironically, i actually just requested a map from our staff hitting upon this exact issue, i think. Commissioner vergara, did you research that . I did research it. There are 222 California Historical resources in San Francisco, just just some random observations about them. There are also under the umbrella of California Historical resources. There are points of historical interest, a list of which i could not find and California Historical landmarks of which there are 48in San Francisco. Um, a quick check as my students were doing their road to the civil war timelines this morning. Comparing the two lists of the 48 historical landmarks x all but four of them are on the register of Historical Resources , and thats the one that counts. That those 222. But of those 222, one of them appears to be the Francis Scott key statue that used to be in golden gate park. So the fact that its on that registry didnt didnt help it read register contains the palace of fine and Decorative Arts on treasure island. But i dont believe it contains the palace of fine arts from the panama pacific exposition. One of the locations is the lydia, which which is a whaler that is buried underneath king street and the embarcadero. So its a really random list, but thats what we have. Yeah. And thats what i recall from looking at that website eight years ago that it was obscure things that we dont have on our local registers. And so, so this brings up the question on whether we need to start putting these buildings on the california register. Maybe rich could sure. Im happy we do have a process. Yes. As a certified local government to certify buildings under the National Register. And if something is certified in the National Register, it is automatically listed in the california register. So california register properties also include a National Register, listed properties. And my recollection of that date is that they dont necessarily put it on the list on the website, correct. So its one of the struggles that weve been having with the state is that their information is notoriously. It is it is it varies. How about that . Thats a great political way of saying it. And maybe we should. So provide them the list that yeah we have Accurate Information for what you know we have pulled together as part of sf survey and so i feel confident in the material that we have to date. Its a question on whether or not that determinations were made. For example, under 106 that might have happened in terms of the actual designation, thats the key thing. Thats tied to many of the state laws. So and under sequa were are there any determinations made of property . Was because sequa is a state mandate or regulation, whether that it would also impose upon the you know, any state funded program that they should include that as part of their potentially. So its the question that youre asking is a little a little funny. So most of what gets categorized is if it is undertaken as part of a nepa process in most cases, right . Sequa then obviously is the state local process. The two can be joined, but not often. But if a Historical Resource was found in either process, it is typically forwarded on to the state. It for them to kind of recognize, but it still doesnt get to the fact of it being designated is the key thing and the designated is really where most of this most of the state laws apply to or exempt. You from. I would want to closely look at the definition portion of that. Um, you know, of california registers definition of listed. Because that has always been something thats you know when youre looking at the categorizations of Historic Resources. The codes they have theres specific things on that but theres also specific things on what is listed and what has been determined, eligible, determined, eligible. But the there is that that nuance there that we need to really think about and see if theres something to be done there. The other question i had was, um, in terms of the projects that come before us, are you saying that for any of these Housing Projects that we would only see the ones that were related to california register. Listed on the listed on the california register, or are you saying that we would see any and all projects but we would be limited in what we could say about these projects . So correct. Kate connor Planning Department staff so for listed on the California National register, if theres a specific adverse impact to a property that is listed, you have more discretion to be able to deny a waiver or an incentive or concession. So you will continue to see all of the same projects, but your discretion for state density bonus projects are those that are subject to the housing accountable act is just incredibly limited and so can we not make recommendations for a project and allow the developer to do discretion to take the recommendation or not take the recommendation, even if its not registered, if its if its not registered. And i think that thats something that could definitely happen in the public hearing format, but there isnt any obligation for the project sponsor to take that. So thats when were encouraging the objective standards so that there is something to rely upon that we can give to the project sponsors. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner vergara. A couple of things. One, one of the locations thats on the state register is telegraph hill. And so an example of what is what comprises telegraph hill. Its all pretty vague, so im not sure what what that means, but hopefully theres a lot of leeway there. And then the other is in addition to the steps weve talked about increasing the number of objective standards and adding landmarks to the state registry, what is the likelihood that this body can recommend to the Planning Department that they recommend to the Mayors Office to lobby sacramento to add to amend that 1979 law to include locally designated landmarks and historic districts. Okay, connor, Planning Department staff. This is something that we have kind of raised during the legislative sessions. One thing to really take note of, too, is that theres been a myriad of new housing programs that have been developed and approved and are now effective since about 2017 when we started to have large housing practices or large housing programs. Um, but all of those also do allow or do they have demolition protections for properties that are not only listed on the california register or national, but also mentions locally listed. So i think there is kind of movement on the state side as far as protect ing like local preservation programs. But this would have to be an amendment that would be made to state density bonus law. And i think kind of it has been tricky to be able to kind of recommend those amendments that might further reduce kind of Housing Development just given the housing crisis. But it is something that we have raised and the programs that are coming are here. Sb 35, sb 423, all of those do have protections for the local listed. Im sorry, but you just mentioned demolition. Oh, correct. So yeah, if youre so some of the other programs, its a little bit of a kind of its a different requirement. So for instance, for sb 35, you cant demolish a resource and it includes those locally listed. So i think theres just more of an acknowledgment about local programs for preservation instead of just relying on the state or national. So i guess just to follow up on commissioner vergaras inquiry, um, is it that youre thinking that we should as a commission make a request to the Planning Department to see if, if, if the Mayors Office is willing to lobby the state legislature to amend the density bonus law to include locally designated landmarks as well as structures within locally designated historic districts. And thats something we can definitely investigate. Date weve definitely talked about it during previous legislative sessions or if there is any other way to recognize were talking about being listed on the california registry. But if there is any other way in which we can further either add to that list, including the local landmarks or local designations, yeah, definitely. We can we can definitely look into that. Any ideas that you guys may have . Please feel free to pass them along. I dont think off the top of my head that it can happen without legislation. Or am i correct . Yeah. So and keep in mind, commissioners, i think you might have heard kate mention this part of the issue here also is like were talking immediately about the state density bonus law, the other state bills also have varying protections related to Historic Resources that are not necessarily consistent with one another. So like one state law might protect designated Historic Resources. Other state laws might encompass locally designated Historic Resource programs. Other state laws rely on the definition options that we rely upon in sequa. So its kind of a little bit of pick and choose about which program is being used for which Housing Project, and then how Historic Resources are accommodated in a lot of the state programs. Historic resources are often carved out or dealt with somehow. The issue is its not consistent across all of them, especially related to the kind of recent housing legislation that weve had. I think the commission would like to be proactive to make sure that we can see protection as as much as we can for all of the new do as well as the 1979 laws, as that affect Historic Resource, as. Sorry to jump in. Commissioner vergara, did you have other i was just wondering if it would be appropriate to put that in the form of a motion right now for the commission to vote to make those recommendations that i mentioned. I think commissioner vergara, this is on the agenda as an informational matter. So if you wanted to make a motion for some sort of an action, we should probably we calendar it as such so that the public has an awareness of the potential action. Right . Okay great. Commissioner foley, president matsuda, you can take charge anytime. I have three things to say. One, one, i think that the presentation that you brought up is connors is really great considering the complicated mirror and things youre trying to communicate to us. And i think you did it in a really great way. So we appreciate that. Um, the, the sb 35 and 423 that just passed, there are protections in there for local Historic Resources. So senator wiener and the assembly have actually have actually worked on that. So. So were good there. And thirdly, i just wonder if the state of california wants to outsource to the San Francisco Planning Department some of the processes they have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner wright. Thank you. I also want to thank miss connor for a really clear, informative presentation. The graphics are very helpful and kind of just having this package to reference every time i have a question. Um, when i cant call you in the middle of the night will be helpful. So thank you for that. And the other question slash point that i wanted to make regarding mr. Sucrase comment about the process for our. For our certifying properties under the National Register from the local just im assuming there there would be some number of properties that that that would be qualified for a state register that would not rise to the level of National Register. And so there would be kind of a miss of some resources in that in that process likely. So the way the Program Works is obviously the city and county of San Francisco is a certified local government, which is a program kind of given invested to us by the state of california within that program, there is a way of basically nominating or certifying bring your locally Designee Program as long as it meets certain bars for consistency against the National Register. So keep in mind that even when you nominate something to the National Register, you can find it significant under local, state or kind of national history. Obviously, a lot of our local program is significant under local history. So its something, for example, that we did with the south end landmark district, which is one of our article ten districts. Its actually a program that were looking to explore to encompass our article 11 conservation districts so that those buildings that are in downtown can avail themselves of tax credits. Federal historic federal rehabilitation tax credits. So were literally beginning the initial stages of reengage ing with the state on this program. So given that we kind of want to target it right now towards downtown. So that way the Office Residential conversions could take advantage of more Historic Preservation incentive as as well as a fairly significant tax incentive. And then that will kind of give us a good idea on how the process works. I can tell you from experience, its i think the last time that we did this as a city, it was about ten years ago and i worked on this program as a consultant rather than as on the city side. So i want to make sure we get all our kind of ducks in a row with regard to that process before we kind of start reengaging it for other for other parts of our our our designation program. Thank you. I think just to reiterate and just to re review that our our interest as the hpc is to just make sure we do whatever we can be proactive, getting whatever resources we can on the state registry. So we can make sure that theyre protected. I mean, even though other pieces of legislation have come through that may offer protections, we just want to be triply sure that were not having anything fall through the cracks. And that was an infant. Oh sorry, commissioner, right. Yes and just to add add on to the discussion, a question would be even if that process were relatively simple and kind of trying to get the resources listed on the state register, how much time does that take . You know, is there a backlog in sacramento. Yeah ill just be honest. Its lengthy, right . The part of the designation process under the california register involves going before the state Historic Resources commission. They only meet four times a year. So obviously, youre on a quarterly cycle. So i will speak from experience that you often are doing quite a bit in the same way we work very extensively with our engaged public. The state works extensively with californias engaged public, so theyre ensuring that whatever applications that are brought before them meet, you know, the guidelines that the state has kind of put forward, can we bring them in mass . Yeah thats a good question. So yeah, no, thats that, that would be one of the good questions that we ask. Bring them in mass knowing that it has already gone through a process and our process seems to be a little bit more consistent. And yeah, and, and we may not be the only jurisdiction trying to protect more of the resources here. So i guess its just acknowledging that that the path through state registry is maybe not not going to help in the immediate. Or that we figure out how it can be. Right. Right. Yes. Yes. Yes. Commissioner nugget, warren, what is what is the safe guard for demolition . Because as even if something is up for demolition, its going to go through sequa. But sequa does not prevent demolition. It is just a longer process, correct . With mitigations and alternatives and all of that. But it doesnt prevent demolition. What is the safeguard there . The state and sequa has basically really well maintained that demolition of a Historic Resource is a significant and unavoidable impact for the purposes of sequa. So theres enough case law on this issue, but it doesnt guarantee that that doesnt necessarily stop a project. It just requires that we disclose the impacts to the public and mitigate them if were able to. So thats the charge that sequa is basically asking a jurisdiction. So theres no safeguard for demolition basically. Connor Planning Department staff. One thing i might just add to richards comments as well is that there arent necessarily those safeguards, meaning you could still probably go through possibly a demolition, that being said, if it was listed on the california register, you might have that ability to deny a waiver or an incentive or concession so youd be able to potentially there is some bargaining power. Yeah, exactly. So there would be a slight safeguard there. Yeah but not for but not for any of the resources that we deem as a city as a landmark that may not be on the california register. That is correct. Any and all of those could be demolished. Scary, commissioner. Right. Yes. And so on the flip side, expanded designation of the resource is particularly to the National Register. Also for peoples information. Does expand some possibilities of participation in the Mills Act Program for instance. And so there are some incentives to designate an its a question of how a proponent for a project would want to which direction they would want to take. Um, just a question. Im sure that were not the only local jurisdiction that has these concerns. Turns are there any other jurisdictions that have filed an injunction or any use . The legal rule out or i dont know, got their local Assembly Person or senator to identify or maybe move state Historic Resources along to accept . No, i think thats a great question. Im not aware of any. Yeah, unfortunately, im not aware of any, but we are trying to kind of stay in contact, especially with kind of the larger cities throughout the state to kind of see how were all implementing all of these different state bills. You know, there are a lot of local jurisdictions that have created like local Bonus Programs that are more compelling than state density bonus law. You know, weve been unable to really do that within San Francisco at this point. The state density bonus law is more flexible than kind of our local program, which is home. Sf it does allow for kind of full on waivers of requirements, but it does provide a pretty hefty density bonus, especially in form based districts where home sf was not even applicable. So i think some jurisdictions have provided a local Bonus Program that, you know, provided very streamlined review. Maybe you didnt have to go through notis et cetera. To be able to preserve some of the requirements that they felt were preserving. Okay commissioner wright, did you have a. Yeah, i would just add to im not im not totally sure on the details or or even if its in response to a state density bonus or which which law or regulation. Its having some issues with. But i think that there have been some challenges in benicia legal challenges. Yes um, but but i to the extent and what those challenges are and what exactly theyre challenging, i dont know definitely happy to look into it. And if any of you also kind of find different jurisdictions where youre aware, especially from the preservation standpoint, that different challenges are that theyre meeting different challenges or going through lawsuits, definitely feel free to contact me and we can dig into those situations. Not to say we would entertain a lawsuit as our City Attorney there. Um, no, i think its i think its good to be aware of what discussions people are having and which jurisdictions and what the what the issues, you know, which issues theyre taking with which laws and regulations is probably helpful for everyone. Absolutely i mean, i think this is also one of the really fundamental, frustrating things with implementing state law is that its not our planning code. And so its not only is the state law amended potentially every year, but then also youre not just looking at state law, which is broadly applied to the entire state and not looking at San Francisco, obviously. But you also have to look at case law, right . So thats like a whole kind of different thing. So all of our City Attorneys are constantly following so we can figure out like where that precedent is being set. You know, we do receive technical guidance from hcd in the form of letters, and they send letters of technical advisory to a million different jurisdictions throughout california. And that can sometimes be precedential as well. So there is a lot to track. Yeah, its complicated and, well, i definitely think we need to figure out if theres an expedited way where we can bring our list in mass to the state. Historic resources commission. There to make sure that we have our properties registered. I mean, i dont mean to sound narrow, but we represent the city and county of San Francisco and we want to make sure that we do whatever we can to protect our resources. So if you can educate us about how we can be proactive in doing that, that would be great. And i dont know. And we would be happy to learn about other legal challenges that have been brought before local jurisdictions to see how theyve kind of dealt with this, because i would hate to wait until we have a very important Historic Resource and then find out, oh, guess what . You dont have any comment, ability to comment or your comment is really wont, you know, provide a whole lot of impact on this building. Im not interested in going down that road unless we i guess i dont know, create an injunction or something to make make sure that doesnt happen. But id like to be more proactive than that. And one more thing to add, not necessarily a high note, but also theres the confluence of different state laws. So senate bill, sb 330 that was passed in 2020, it was amended with sb eight. In 2022. It also says that any sort of Historic Resource determination like that needs to be done when its a complete application. So we cant be in the process of designating midstream. So thats Something Else to keep aware of, especially if were going to be considering like the big bulk designation. And i will definitely look to rich sue gray for help on how we do that. Good point. So we just have to make sure we have them all in right now. Yes great. Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation on any other comments or questions from the commission on this was an informational agenda item, but if any of the commissioners would like to have this be brought back as an agenda item, we can make that motion. Well, you would we wouldnt necessarily need a motion. You could just just you could just direct. We could direct that. Commissioner nageswaran i was just going to say, per commissioner vergara suggestion and also the suggestion of, you know, creating a list of Historic Resources. Wed like to get updates on that as well. So it would be really effective if we could do those either or, you know, in the next month so that we know where we are. Yeah, commissioner, i have a note here as part of our my announcements, ill add this to our agenda for a future hearing. So that way you get some clarity in terms of the scope of what this is currently impacting. And then we can certainly add a letter regarding design nation under the california register as a future agenda item. So that way you can direct staff to produce a letter and you know, on behalf of the commission, great, great. Thank you. Any other comments, any last comments before we adjourn for today . Seeing none, we are adjourned. Thank you very much. This job, its really not an i job. I wouldnt be able to do this job without other people. I make sure that all the regulatory and nonregulatory samples get to access in a timely manner. We have groundwater samples, you name it, we have to sample it every day. I have ten technicians, very good team. We Work Together to attain this sampling. A sample is only as good as when you collect properly. If sample is not collect properly according to not the proper protocol, the sample could be biased, could be false positive or could be false negative. So all this to have good so you can manage the sample collectors, as well as the schedule, and she is pretty good, and she is very thorough. And so far, i think that she is performing a very good job. This job is really not an i job. I wouldnt be able to do this job without my team. You can assign them any job, they can handle it, and again, without them, i wouldnt be here. I take pride, you know, for what i do. We are providing a very good Water Department. My name is roselle, and i have been working with the Water Department to be. Hi, im average im a personal analyst that the Human Resources examining and recruitment unit and suffix i started my career as a San Francisco State University and got my bachelors in psyched and orientational psyche if they had we have a great relationship that the San Francisco Unified School District i exploded for American People interim Shopping Mall and become eligible for a permeate job. Okay. Perfect. I love working for our Human Resources services because of the agriculture were laidback with a professional mindset although Human Resources is a challenge were light a hearted started as a intern guided through the process eventually one day a a Deputy Director or staying with the puc is where i love it what say a nice day to build housing in San Francisco. Good evening, everyone. Im london breed where we are going to build over 500 units of housing. [cheers and applause] man, i dont think i have ever signed a piece of legislation supporting housing that has made me happier than the one im about to sign today. You know, president peskin, i want to take us back a tad bit because when you came back to the board of supervisors, the work
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.