Planning commission hears informational presentation on 1687 Market Street project that would demolish Article 10 landmark

On Feb. 5, 2025, the San Francisco Planning Commission received an informational presentation on a proposed mixed-use project at 1687 Market Street that would demolish a building identified as a contributor to the discontiguous Article 10 Market Street Masonry Landmark District and replace it with 100% affordable housing and four floors of arts space.

The project team submitted an application in May 2024 proposing demolition of the McCroskey Building (built 1925) and construction of approximately 102 affordable housing units atop four floors of arts uses including a black-box theater, rehearsal rooms and related services, Planning Department staff said. Rebecca Salgado, the assigned planner, said the project was initially found ineligible for the ministerial approval pathway under Assembly Bill 2011 because it fell within 500 feet of on- and off-ramps for US Route 101; after AB 2243 amended AB 2011 effective Jan. 1, 2025, the department determined the revised eligibility rules apply to the application submitted in 2024 and the project is now eligible for ministerial approval. "I wanted to give you an overview of the project as well as answer any questions you may have about it," Salgado told commissioners.

Why it matters: commissioners and public speakers flagged that ministerial approval limits the commission's ability to require mitigation or preserve a locally listed historic building. Because the project is proceeding under a ministerial ministerial review stream, staff said there is no discretionary environmental review under CEQA tied to this approval, and the department cannot impose mitigation requirements that would be mandatory conditions of approval.

Details from staff and the legislation

Salgado told the commission the site is a contributor to the Article 10 Market Street Masonry Landmark District (designated Feb. 2012) and that the building at 1687 Market Street — identified in the presentation as the McCroskey Building — was constructed in 1925. She said the team first applied in May 2024 under AB 2011 and the state density bonus program. At that time, AB 2011 allowed demolition of a historic structure if the project consisted of 100% affordable housing, but the department determined the project was within 500 feet of ramps serving US Route 101 and therefore ineligible. The applicant withdrew the May 2024 application and resubmitted in November 2024.

Salgado explained that AB 2243, the state amendment effective Jan. 1, 2025, changed AB 2011's definition of "freeway" to exclude on- and off-ramps that connect the freeway to nonfreeway roadways and added other eligibility criteria (for example, requirements about centralized HVAC). AB 2243 also removed authorization for an affordable housing project subject to the act to demolish a historic structure placed on a register. Because the November 2024 resubmittal was filed on or before Dec. 31, 2024, staff said the project could be evaluated under the earlier version of AB 2011. The department has sent an initial plan-check letter and is awaiting a response from the project team.

Public comment and commissioners' concerns

Catherine Petren, a member of the public who spoke during general comment earlier in the meeting, urged the commission to reject the notion that historic district designation "freezes a city in amber" and called preservation "information" that "informs positive change." Petren cited the Embarcadero National Register district and other nearby projects as examples where change occurred after designation.

Commissioners asked whether the arts space would affect eligibility and sought the specific statutory language. Commissioner Baldov asked, "how the black box theater works into this approval because I thought the project had to be 100% residential, not, and having a black box theater is certainly not." Salgado replied staff will follow up with the exact statutory language and said the eligibility prescreening was performed by housing program experts.

Several commissioners expressed regret that, under the ministerial pathway, the commission lacks authority to require preservation measures. Commissioner Waldorf asked whether there was an opportunity to persuade the developer to modify plans to integrate the existing building, citing a prior project that retained a historic funeral-home facade. Rebecca Salgado and other planning staff said that earlier, higher-level conversations had occurred but that the formal submittal and ministerial eligibility triggered a constrained, check-box process with strict timelines.

Commissioner Foley recommended staff ask the project sponsor "very nicely" to consider keeping a photographic record or framing a photograph of the building in the lobby if the facade cannot be preserved. "I would like this building saved. Of course I'd like this building saved," Foley said, adding that a framed photo and a bit of history in a lobby might be an easy request for the sponsor to accept. Commissioner Baldauff said the commission should "go on record" noting the loss of an Article 10 building and respectfully request that the developer consider preserving the facade or otherwise memorializing the building.

Staff guidance and next steps

Planning staff said the department will relay commission concerns to the project team and noted the department's plan-check letter has been issued and staff are awaiting the applicant's response. Because the ministerial program's eligibility checks are the first step, staff said they must determine compliance with the statute before proceeding with the plan check and that ministerial approvals are time-limited by state rules.

No formal commission vote or binding directive was made at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to pass along requests to the project sponsor and to place concerns on the record. The department's planner said the project team resubmitted under AB 2011 and the department has started review.

Ending

The department is awaiting additional materials from the applicant in response to the plan-check letter. Commissioners said they will ask staff to communicate their preference that the project sponsor consider retaining a facade or otherwise documenting the building's history at the new development site.