Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mills Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables Mills Act contract for 1338 Filbert Street after preservation and housing concerns
Summary
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee unanimously tabled a proposed Mills Act contract for 1338 Filbert Street after preservation groups and neighbors raised concerns that the project had already completed much of its rehabilitation, reduced unit count from 10 to 4 and involved extensive subterranean work. The item will not go to the full board.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee on Nov. 3, 2016, unanimously tabled consideration of a Mills Act historic-preservation contract for 1338 Filbert Street after members heard concerns from preservation advocates and neighbors.
Shannon Ferguson of the Planning Department described the Mills Act program and the Filbert Street application, saying the building is landmark number 232 and that the owners had already completed substantial seismic work and planned to invest "over $900,000" in exterior restoration to rehabilitate the building and garden. "The department currently holds 22 active Mills Act contracts," Ferguson said, and the Historic Preservation Commission had unanimously recommended approval on Oct. 5, 2016.
Preservation groups urged greater scrutiny. Mike Bueller, president of San Francisco Heritage, told the committee the application lists about "$2,000,000 in rehabilitation costs claimed" but that "about, over 1,700,000.0, of that work has been completed or will be completed before this contract takes effect," and questioned whether some work was triggered by an underground expansion rather than preservation needs.
Neighbor and preservation attorney Susan Brandholly opposed the contract as presented. She said the project reduced the number of housing units from "10 units" down to "4 units," created an underground parking garage and "completely change[d] the landmark property," and that the project had generated CEQA litigation in the past. "The board has discretion to find that this is not in the public interest," she said, asking that the contract not be entered into.
Committee members pressed planning staff for context. Tim Frey, the city—ormerly identified as historic preservation officer in the hearing, said the project had been approved previously by both the Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission and that the preservation commission has in recent years favored promoting use of the Mills Act for eligible landmark properties.
Citing testimony from San Francisco Heritage and Brandholly's letter, Chair Aaron Peskin proposed tabling the matter in committee rather than forwarding it to the full Board of Supervisors. An unidentified committee member moved to table; after discussion and questions about the reduction in units and outreach to low-income or elderly owners, Peskin said, "without objection, the matter is tabled unanimously." The contract will not be sent to the full board for the Nov. 15 agenda.
