applied equally to both buildings. the house was designated in 1988, and when they designated the home, a designated the entire lot, and most importantly -- they designated the entire lot. the landmark is called "and carriage house." this demonstrates the importance of this non visible building. one of the goals of the program is to prevent the demolition of important structures, including de factor -- facto demolitions. i would like to point out that never is the commission raising an issue about the adapted use of this building to a residential units.

i believe this is something we have always supported, but the standards are also based on a similar promise. all efforts must be maintained to preserve features. when this is not feasible, the standards also provide guidance for new construction and major alterations, -- and major alteration. specifically, the standards state that work should not create a false sense of history. work should not add elements of another style, and it must be differentiated. we think these of the elements of the standards that are the most prescriptive and are very clear. the hpc determined to -- determined that 280 divisadero

did not meet that standard. there is nothing that indicates that the building possesses the high architectural style that is stated. the owner even says there is no more to gaudy and rehabilitation, -- to guide rehabilitation, and that was a problem for the department and for the hpc. adding architectural elements where there is no documentation of these elements never existed. it creates a false sense of history. it adds elements of another style, and it clearly does not differentiate itself. the appellate has also submitted -- the appellant has also submitted examples. however, the examples missed -- miss.

therefore, the standards say they cannot be added to the building, so for the past nine years, while the landmark building has fallen into disrepair from a lack of maintenance, the department, the former landmark's board, the hpc has worked together, and we would like to support the conversion to a residential unit. unfortunately, after many years of back and forth, the appellant has not been willing to revise this any further, and they have asked the hpc to review this. we still believe there are opportunities to pursue something viable of this location, but because the appellant will not compromise on a design, we cannot recommend approval of the c of a. they do not believe they meet the standards, visible or not, so the disapproval of the c of a

to demolish the building and construct a new building should be upheld. the hpc is composed of experts in preservation, with many on staff of the planning department. we also supported this decision. we do not think this c of a should be approved. further, this violates standards. the department weighed all of these issues, the hpc weighed all of these issues and ultimately denied this. that is my presentation. commissioner fung: nothing substantive yet, mr. frye, but what is the landmark number? >> landmark number one hundred 90. director goldstein: we can move to public comment now.

anyone who would like to speak, please line up against the wall. president goh: the people who wants to speak, if you could lineupline u -- note -- if you could stand up? i cannot go below one minute, can i? director goldstein: those who wish to speak, if you could fill out a speaker card either before or after you speak and hand it to the clerk, thank you. >> thank you, and thank you, president goh. i will be less than one minute. i am the executive director of the apartment association. i have known richard for almost 20 years, in a business,

professional capacity. i have seen many of the rental units that mr. zillman and his wife have rehabilitated, and they have always been done in the upmost of taste. i know them to be active in the preservation note grooves in san francisco, and i am sure that any project that they turn out will be a pleasure to the city and pleasant for their tenants to occupy, as are all of the other units i have seen that they have done , so the thank you so much for your time. director goldstein: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am the principal author of a survey. i have reviewed lots over the years.

i would like to emphasize that some provisions of this plan are very ambiguous and highly subject to interpretation, particularly the provisions concerning the new and the old and a false sense of historical appearance. experts often disagree on the interpretation of this standards. i have worked with staffed, particularly concerning differentiation. in this case, the disagreeing experts are part of the planning staff, although i respect the staff, mr. gladstone touched on some of the key points. the proposal maintains the scale and important relationships. [bell] it is fanciful and therefore displays historical development. thank you.

>> good evening. i am john. i am one of the founding members of the liberty hill neighborhood association that was founded 25 years ago, and i stayed in this house 35 years ago when i was a kid in my 20's, as a kid for one week, and on other occasions, whenever i lost my keys. my friend had acquired this house because they love victorians, and they bought it in a state of total ruin. they completely remodeled the kitchen in the back, which is certainly not victorian, but you are allowed to do that. it is on the national register of historic places, and we were told when we established this district 25 years ago, the back wall and the back yard, out of sight from the street, was our own option, and we could bend rules a little bit back there. they have done what others do. another had a kitchen, and so

does this house. they put big, huge -- [bell] director goldstein: thank you. next speaker, please. president goh: can we have the speakers, up so that there is not this walking time? >> i moved in in 1993. i have actually seen this carriage house since then. what i see from my window is pretty much the picture i am seen since 1993 and has not changed at all, so there is not this repair happening. this is exactly the way it looked since 1993. the fact is, it is on this registry, but when i visited prior to their ownership, there was a garage sale, and there were linoleum floors and the horrible, horrible sliding windows. i cannot believe it actually made the registry looking in that state.

what has happened into the inside since then, i do not know. it does not do the house justice. i would love to see that from my window. [bell] i think the decision should go to zoning. director goldstein: thank you. come speaker, please. >> hi, my name is rita. i have lived there for 10 years. yes, there are features that appear to be historic. mostly, it appears to be a wreck that we have to look at, and we wish it would have been fixed up to an years ago, and i have signatures from everybody in my building. it took me a whole of 15 minutes to collect them because there is unanimous support. thank you. director goldstein: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> i have been involved with architectural preservation in the city. i sat at the card table, getting people to preserve this, which is the beginning within the city. i am also a real estate broker. i have dealt with a lot of historic properties. mr. zillman and i have been at the forefront of historic preservation for many years. i believe what they are doing is a great asset for the city. i have an arts and crafts house with the carriage house in the rear. ecker i was thinking of making this house into a historical landmark. i do not think i am going to do

it. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> i am a tour leader with the public library. for nine years, i have led a different walking tours in san francisco. i support the design that they propose to the victorian carriage house. in looking at the project, there are available this resources that suggest the appearance of the carriage house, not just at 280 divisadero. however, there is no record of what this carriage house looked like in the 18 eighties, so there is a challenge. after 10 years, berard only five

years, -- there aren't -- there are five options. let's do the right thing. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> hello, i also work with a nationally registered property. i fully support the zillmans. they have been at the forefront of historical preservation. we are telling you, we support the zillmans. i was written upper in "historic preservation" magazine that i took apart and rebuilt, and i rebuilt the original architect board for board, because i supported what the original architect did. i did not agree with what the

secretary said. not all preservationists' do. it is a wonderful preservation, and i am here to support them on this project. i also want to say it is a travesty this took 10 years. but the people have made it hard for us. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> i am dennis. i have known them for over 30 years is. i have seen several of their apartments, and the way they do work, they do beautiful work. what i wanted to bring up is that someone could have easily done this project without a permit, in that we may be sitting here and discussing something different, but the zillmans wanted to do it right, with a permit, as legally as possible. the other problem, every morning, they have to look out the window at the project they are going to do.

they would love to do the right work that they want to do. thank you very much, and i support the project. i'm a member of many organizations including the victorian alliance of which these are many members. he has contributed to the effort with his attention to period builds. he has made san francisco a part of san francisco beautiful. we are both members of a number of -- besides the victorian alliance. i have member of the fine arts museums. state university museums. a number of museums. my own neighborhood in deloirs heights and several others.

rather than the shanty, sort of a shanty right now. a shanty exists. not one of those types. >> good evening, my name is angela scott. live next door to them and i can see the carriage house through my bais not pretty but they do great work. i've seen the rental units that they have restored. i spent time with them. they are wonderful people. some day i would love to live in a unit as they have planned. i support them and i hope that you will too. thank you. next speaker. >> i actually live in one of their units. i just want to say they are precious little gems of people. they take amazing care of their property. this is the only place where i have ever lived. i'm petrified to hang things on the wall.

everything is in perfect condition. i think -- they will do the same thing to this renovation. it will be an amazing and great place to live. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is lisa and i'm the president of the neighborhood association. our board enthusiastically supports this project. you know, richard has been trying to help me get hinges in my house that would match my house. they really believe in preservation. they do a wonderful job on this project and we hope that you'll support them. >> thank you. next speaker? >> my name is skeeter jones. i build -- i've been building since 1972. that's about 39 years, victorian facades. we all know richard. we're victorian enthusiasts. we know what we're looking at. i know one of the problems with this is what they call conjecture, making something up. i challenge the historic review

board and i have seen their work and seen what they call what they think is historic and i think we know more than they do about historic preservation in san francisco. not all over the country but unique to san francisco. and i support richard and his enthusiasm for what we do for victorians in this city. i wish that we had more of a chance to continue what we do best by improving the city instead of letting it go the way that we all have done. thank you. next speaker. >> han sell -- in the -- i worked for them for the last three decades. and i also do victorian restoration as well. and project is not really a restoration. so much as a folly. and a folly is an architectural

dream or an idea that an owner of a building has, they want to put it on their property because they like that. and victorians basically are follies in themselves because they were catalog houses. you could order parts. you could design your house the way you wanted it. before ark teches decided that they had to put their -- people were buying house parts and having carpenters assemble them. now they have a carriage house in the back and they want to improve that and yes, it is not going -- >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is jim. i'm here to speak as the vice president of san francisco victorian alliance, one of san francisco's oldest preservation organizations. we review this project very, very careful, discuss it thoroughly as you did to incite

visits to understand it well and thank you for doing them and wholeheartedly support the renovation, restoration reinterpretation, whatever you want to cailt of this lovely property. we know the zone limits well and on a personal level now that i have done my official statement, all i can do is say that i agree with every comment that has been made about the integrity of these people, their respect for it. this is their home. they look out at it every day. they have done for buildings across the city wonderful things. they are not going to do anything bat for -- every day. -- bad for -- every day. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is roger reid. i'm an interior designer near the city. of course i want to know what is happening with the drapery. it is so important to know that they will not only do the right thing with the exterior of this building but that they are going

to do the right thing to the interior. they have spent so much time developing their design that it really does deserve to be moved through. i'm very much in support of them. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comments? ok. seeing none, we'll move into rebuttal. mr. gladstone. you have three minutes. >> hello again. mr. frye said this building retains a high level of integrity. not only is that something that mark holbert doesn't agree with and chris buckley from alameda and oakland historic but neither did the planning commissioner at

the hearing. i would like quickly to read a couple of things from what he said "is there really enough integrity left for this structure to continue to convey its historic significance? haven't the alterations severely reduced all or some of the seven aspebts of integrity"? why wasn't this carriage house compared with other carriage houses? the greater neighborhood? i don't believe the description of what would have been allowed -- of what would be allowed in this alternative would meet the reconstruction standards stating by the planning department. the planning department here is really in a minority in its opinions. chief frye and discussed earlier the likelihood that the preservation board priest to this one or the h.b.c. has ever turned down all the e.i.r. alternatives that were put before it. basically killing a project

unprecedented. but it was done here. mr. frye said our building is false -- but take a look at the barn. that planning staff has state as one of their two preferred alternatives. we think this is really the definition of false -- and by the way, the evidence shows that this was a carriage house. the horses were across the street. the barns were across the street. so planning is putting forward -- that is more speculative than youth we believe occurred there. i want to remind you that there is no project before the city, if you don't aprove this one. a new project would have to be designed. it would have to go through a certificate of appropriateness. e.i.r. more consultants. more fees. a couple of years, my clients are exhausted. the neighborhood is exhausted. they have no more energy.

and basically i wanted to point out that when the planning department says our clients design is extreme, please look at the second alternative preferred by planning. met alic siding. frosty glazz. that i think is extreme. and i would like to just simply say that we would really, really appreciate and the neighborhood and the zellmans ask you to consider the effort, the support and the comments of planning commissioner suingia, formerly a member of your board. thank you. >> thank you. i have a question. about commissioner sugaya. you read from the e.i.r. but didn't he vote against certificate of appropriateness? >> no, there is no vote on the certificate of appropriateness by the planning commission.

>> i'm sorry. oh, i see. >> he is not on h.p.c. thank you. >> mr. frye, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> department staff. i don't think anybody is disputing the integrity of the zellmans. they have made great contributions to preservation in san francisco. what we're talking about here is the integrity of the process. this is a landmark building. if the board of supervisors felt that this building retained enough integrity to be a landmark then the department needs to apply the standards appropriately and in regards to rehabilitation of the landmark. i would also like to clarify a few things that mr. gladstone stated. the e.i.r. was certified by the planning commission. that mean it was adopted as being adequate and complete. there was no rejection of any

alter e.i.r. they agreed that it was complete. they weres of the options that were provided or the alternatives. it is just an exercise. it is meant to explore various options. that doesn't mean those are all the options that could be explored. there are many options that could be floated for a project here and the department and the h.p.c. look forward to seeing some of those options if our disapproval is upheld. and finally, in closing, just to clarify what the department is this is what would be an approveable project at the site. it depends again how it is executed. if the alteration should be simple and designed to keeping the character with a simple utilitarian qualities of the building and the evidence that we see at the -- at the site, and that any materials that are beyond repair should be replaced in kind and that the building

should be brought up to code and again, just to reiterate, there has never been an issue regarding the conversion over the building into a residential unit and we certainly would support that as well. thank you. >> i just have a question on the second drawing that was put forward by mr. gladstone. is that something that your department sketched? is that a modern sort of -- sort of inconsistent with the standard that you have been -- articulating? look at the thing that he is putting on the overhead. is that -- >> no. tim frye department staff. i'm not -- again, i apologize. i am the 13th planner on this project so i don't have all the history but if we were to provide options, it was only as a matter of guidance for the applicant in developing some options. the reconstruction standards are extremely flexible in terms of

its interpretation of historic buildings that no longer exist and based on the applicants' objectives was for complete demolition so we were looking for something that mimicked the original roof, line and form of the existing structure. again, i think those are the primary elements that you can still see today and those are flebted in albeit a contemporary proposal but they are reflected here. >> thank you. >> how much did these exercises cost the zellmans? >> pardon me? >> referring to these drawings that were submitted with the e.i.r.? >> an e.i.r. is an exercise. it is identified an impact and as pa part of that then an e.i.r. has to be completed. >> right. what did that cost the

zellman's? i don't have that information in hand now. >> so all of those hours planning to come up with drawings that seems as though h.b.c. basically said whatever has been -- it almost as though they overturned the e.i.r. as well as the -- of approval? the certificate of approval? >> they do not have the authority to overturn the e.i.r. >> seems as though they did. i didn't say they did. the reason seems as though they did is because they didn't consider any of the proposals or make proposals of their own as to what would be acceptable alternatives. putting them in a position where were we to not overturn their -- >> that is correct. they would have to propose a new design. the zell mans, that is. >> thank you. >> is the burden on the department to produce a drawing for an applicant?