Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Designation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission removes contributing status for 335 Roosevelt but preserves front façade
Summary
Following extensive public comment, the commission determined the building at 335 Roosevelt is non‑contributing to the Mission Historic District but retained the front façade as the portion to be preserved.
After more than an hour of public testimony and staff analysis, the Consejo asesor técnico y de cumplimiento voted to remove the contributing designation for 335 Roosevelt Avenue on March 19, 2025, while specifying that the building’s front façade remain a contributing element.
Property owner Denise Anderson urged the commission to reclassify the building as non‑contributing to enable redevelopment, saying the structure had undergone decades of alterations and did not reflect the qualities the district protects. "Este edificio no hace esto, no hay reconocimiento, no hay ninguna agencia que haya decidido que esto es una estructura histórica," Anderson said, arguing the property lacks documentation of historic significance.
More than a dozen residents and business owners spoke in favor of removing the contributing status, citing neighborhood revitalization and the property’s altered condition; several speakers described personal or family ties to the Mission area. The Society of Conservation provided a letter and a voicemail in the record supporting staff recommendations to maintain designation in some form; the Society’s representative later testified that the building had been identified as potentially historic in past surveys.
Commissioners discussed the district’s purpose — to protect mission‑era Spanish cultural resources and related agricultural landscapes — and whether the building’s Art Deco/automobile‑era character fit that purpose. Staff explained that if a property is determined non‑contributing, an administrative demolition permit could follow; if it remains contributing, demolition would require a hearing.
A commissioner moved to find the building non‑contributing except for the front façade (i.e., the façade would remain contributing). The motion carried on roll call: Castillo, Sabino, Galloway, Masuca, Group, Holland and Gibbs voted yes; Velázquez and Cervantes voted no. The commission advised the owners they may later return with demolition or redevelopment plans and that preserving or reconstructing the façade could be addressed in future permits and design reviews.
The commission’s action is a determination of contribution status; any subsequent demolition or redevelopment will follow applicable permitting processes under the City Unified Development Code and the commission’s rules.
