Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the McCroskey Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, preservation advocates raise alarm about McCroskey building amid state housing law changes
Summary
A resident and legacy-business official told the Historic Preservation Commission that recent state law amendments could allow demolition of the McCroskey building at 1687 Market St.; commissioners asked staff to add the topic to a future agenda and to brief the commission.
A City and County of San Francisco employee and longtime preservation advocate raised concerns about the McCroskey building at 1687 Market Street during general public comment, warning that recent state housing law changes could allow developers to bypass local design review and demolish the structure.
Richard Carrillo, who identified himself as the Legacy Business Program manager with the city but said he was speaking "as a resident," described a series of state legislative changes he said affected local review authority. Carrillo said an amendment (referenced in the hearing as "AB 2243"/"AB 2 243") further modified AB 2011 in a way that may permit a developer to use a ministerial process to remove a historic resource when the project's application was filed in 2024. "So unless there's some way to make this project rescinded and he has to propose it in 2025, then this building is gonna be demolished," Carrillo said, urging attention from the commission.
Commissioners asked planning staff for information. Department staff (identified in the record as Mr. Sucre and other planning staff) said they did not have a full briefing on the specific project status but described broadly how state ministerial housing laws interact with local review. Staff explained that in some instances projects that completed applications before revisions to state law may continue under earlier rules and that developers are frequently encouraged to consult planning staff before filing an application so that preservation options can be explored.
The commission agreed to add the McCroskey building to a future agenda for an update. Planning staff offered to have the project planner contact Commissioner Nagas Warren and to prepare an agenda item or briefing at the next meeting. The commission also discussed notifying the city's assembly member and supervisor offices.
No formal action was taken that night beyond the referral to staff to schedule an update; the commission instructed staff to return with information for the next meeting and to coordinate contacts with elected officials and the project planner.
