a schedule appointment where i can just have my time to speak what i want. >> during general public comment. >> thank you very much. >> anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i am representing the ownership of 1050 stanford street which is on the other side of this property and we own the alley way that is in the rear of 901 battery street and i want to apologize that the notice of this hearing was the first time that i heard of a project going on 901 battery, and i would like to request the final approval of the certificate of the appropriateness. and that i have the opportunity to talk to the sponsors, on whether their additional six-inch wall on the require alley encroaches on my property or not and that is my request. and if i might actually i

believe that is handling in planning department. i mean that you will find that if the staff could comment on that? >> that is from the department staff. and that would be handled at the department of building inspection and the department of public works and the bureau of mats and plats. and once the permit is formally submitted, then, that would be your opportunity to work with the property owner. and when, after the permits? >> well, when the permit is under review, by the city. this is just to improve the entitlement that goes along with that permit. >> okay. >> you may want to speak to the representatives of the families. >> okay, i will take that opportunity, thank you. >> and just to clarify, the site plan that we have shows the property running several feet through the west of the new concrete wall and so it appears that this is on their property and i imagine that it will be on the property. >> i don't know how they can do anything other than that. >> would i like the

clarification on that and because the documents that we reviewed and there is an appropriate alley way behind the building and our property extends. >> and we understand. >> thank you. >> okay. >> and any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> seeing none we will bring it back to the commission. >> yeah, do you have a comment? >> commissioners tim fry, comment, just to reemp t any comment that you may have on the arg comments on approval and the signage and the special signage on the north east water front is quite restrictive and so while you may feel that there is a signage that is more in keeping with the historic photographs, the special district, that is outlined with the planning code is actually more restricted than what we would say the standards would allow and so that is one of the conditions that the on proval is outlined it is that it is.

i am happy to answer the questions if you have them. >> in regards to the exposed stainless steel systems it is a standard condition of approval to ask for a painted finished metals within this district as a predominant character defining feature, bound from the district. >> thank you, commissioner baoerl pearlman. >> i had written down exactly the question that the project sponsor had asked about the stainless steel and it does differentiate it from the condition on the building and it is also, set back in under, you know the building and thes set back and so, in terms of that condition, do we want to make it different or exactly the same as indicating that we don't want to do anything false? >> all right. >> mr. fry? >> department staff, and our intent has always been to match the finishes that are the

predominant character, and we would suggest to i simplify that. and so that we know that it is a modern intersvensing and we are consistent with requiring these weatherized or painted finishes because historically there was very little exposed metal within these districts. i have another question. >> it is a design question about on the battery street side, where it appears that prior to 1961, i think that was the date, that the corness would have been intact and now, the new design, you know, it looks as if, from the photographs, being used to get a truck in and so they just kind of cut up into the corness and if you go around to the

side and there is an entrance where it is complete and if you look at the original drawing, it also i mean that it is hard to read, but it appears that and it would make sense that the corness would go straight across and i am wondering if why not while you are rebuilding that and make it the way that it really is rather than repeat whating was an error at the time to cut into a reference to a corness there and say that is what happened in 1961 and so we sudden just view that when it was not the intention of the original design and was done for expediency. >> i don't know. i am lost. >> well, it is not really... it is a question, i guess for this commission to say do we endorse the design as it is and it did not come from the lrc because there was not an opportunity and again this is a small project and relative to what we

do here, but it just seems like a strange solution. when you have got this historic district and this is a building that contributes to the district and we do have documentations that shows the entrances of what the condition was most likely was and so it does not seem a stretch to rebuild it the way that it probably was. >> most likely was. >> and so, again, i don't know how to propose that as a request or a condition or anything. >> thank you, commissioner wolfram? >> i have a question, for the project architect, just about the light sconce that was selected around at the front entrance and i may have missed the information about this, and it was based on the historical and can you tell me about the selection of that particular sconce and is that based on the other lights at the building?

>> good afternoon, commissioners david wesle architecture resources group. commissioner wolfram, the light selection was based on the photographs of the similar buildings of the period but not an exact replica and so we chose something that was in the character of but it is not meant to be replication of what was there. it just, the thing that occurs to me is slightly odd is that you have this contemporary canopy and then this is historic and which, it just seems like maybe you just do a contemptary light. and some basis for it based on the building and i would be more comfortable and it just seems a little bit in conflict with the contemporary canopy. and i would have to say that the canopy at least in the

sketch of it the building is big and the canopy is weak. i am not a huge fan but i think that it is okay. but it seems a little flimsy, i wish that the lights had it with the canopy but it was based on historic evidence and i am not thrilled with it being this kind of in between. >> thank you. >> don't know yet. >> commissioner johns? >> commissioner pearlman raised a question that occurred to me and that is about the corness. and could the corness be made to as long as you are going to repair it to look more the way that it most probably did? >> i think that where we are commissioner johns where we are with that is trying to work with

was there and not to work with conjecture and use the physical evidence that we had and make it clear that the entrance, now, here, is or has been a recent adaptation of the original facade? >> but it could be changed to continue the corness? >> it could be, sure. >> there are other cornesses on the building and i don't know what the permit said, if it said to enlarge the opening in this particular location, but it does seem that it is not, it is not really conjectural. you know, this is a completely odd condition that no, you know, no architect would have designed, you know, the funny

bump up in the open or in the corness? >> right. >> it does not seem like it is a conjecture to say that we have put this back the way that it was when the building was built. >> it just seems like that is a possibility but it does look odd and funny. >> i appreciate that comment and there is a reason that that opening was made and if we make too much of a change in it, but then we have obliterated that evidence. >> my comments are going to mirror commissioner wolfram's although the canopy is fine with me, and it is a modern use and it is a modern entrance, but the light fixtures i agree are not right and i would like to see that go totally modern. >> yeah, okay. >> and maybe, in the motion we can add that you sort of the sponsor could work with it on

refinement of the light fixtures. >> we would be pleased to do it. >> yes. >> and do we have a motion? >> no. >> do you want any comments? >> thank you. >> no. i mean, the architect really, you know has made some decisions that are based on some facts that he has in evidence. so i will accept that we may be changing something that we don't know anything about. >> okay. so i make a motion that we approve with the conditions as described by it and in a further decision to work with the staff on a more contemporary light fikt tur fixture for the entrance. >> and i will second the motion with the amendments. >> thank you. >> any other comment? >> seeing none, we will go to a vote. >> commissioners on that motion, to approve with conditions, adding a condition

that the sponsor work with the staff on more contemporary light fixtures on that motion, commissioner johnck. >> yes. >> johns. >> yes. >> matsuda >> yes. >> wolfram. >> yes. >> pearlman >> yes. >> hasz. >> yes. >> and that passes 6 for 0. if we may take a five-minute break, please? >> thank you. [break]

2008.0405a (shelley caltagirone: 415-558-6625) 628-632 steiner street, east side between hayes and fell streets. assessor's block 0822, lot 024 - request for a certificate of appropriateness >> good afternoon, i am here to report on 632 steiner street which is a residence that contributes to the landmark district and the building was designed by the architect matthew obrain in 1902. and john fillmore, and the proposal includes a three car garage at the existing level of the building and creating a garage opening that will require removal of the curved concrete bay and currently interrupted by a pedestrian an door on the south side. and the door would be 8 feet wide by 6 feet and 8 inches tall and it will be placed flush with the facade. the concrete base would be repaired and replicated to

infill the area currently occupied by the pedestrian an door. the staff is determined that the proposed work is compatible with the character defining features of the subject building and the landmark district. the project will retain the res denial use on the lot and creating a garage to support the contemporary use of the building and all aspects will be retained and preserved and no materials or architect you aral elements or spaces that characterize the property will be removed and the portion of the basement wall to be removed does not have any distinctive features beyond the form which will be replicated at the base to match the stair walls, the proposed garage will be clearly contemporary in its design and will not create a false sense of historic development and the garage design is in keeping with the existing garages installed in the various sites in the district or the base of a projecting bay is modified to accommodate a new opening and including the adjacent building

to the south. the proposed landscaping at either side of the way will create the plantings in the front set back area and the transitional space. and the staff recommends approval with the conditions and those conditions will be that as part of the building permit, the project sponsor shall submit additional construction details and describing the historic formed concrete wall to be replicated at the basement level of the facade for the department staff for review and approval and second that as prior to the building permit, the project sponsor shall provide product specifications for the new garage door and review and approval for the department staff and that the new doors will be of the design that is compatible with the character of the subject building and that concludes my presentation and there are represented from the garage the project sponsor here to drieb the project for

you. >> good afternoon, my name is racel, and i am the project sponsor. the proposed project is to install a new garage in this 3 unit building in the historic district and proposing to remove the bottom portion of this bay to install the garage, and the current bay has a significant portion removed from the bay already and for the door, and this makes it no longer a distinctive architect feature of this building. there are several properties in the district with the rounded base that also have garage and we provided a map and the photos of the garages in the packet. and for your review. and due to the altered bay we filled up the garage to this property will not negatively

effect the historic value of the property, and the property is currently owner occupied as well. and with the families in the 3 car garage will provide one spot per family and it will have excuse me, a minimal effect to the street parking in this district as well. and if you have any other questions and i am here and also the owner of the property. >> thank you. >> commissioners do you have any questions staff for the sponsor? >> seeing none, open up for the public comment? >> and anyone from the public wish to comment on this item? >> seeing none, we will close the public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> for either a discussion or a motion. >> well, i move that we adopt the staff's recommendation, to approve with the conditions. and second. >> second. >> thank you.

>> do you want to call the roll? >> on that motion, to approve with conditions, commissioner hylan? >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes, commissioner yo* johnck. >> hasz. >> yes. >> wolfram. >> yes. >> peer man >> yes, that paces and places you on item ten. 2011.0913a (shelley caltagirone: 415-558-6625) 320-323 judah street, north side eighth and ninth avenues. assessor's block 1763, lots 020 and 021 - request for a certificate of appropriateness . >> i am here to present this and also known as the building and office building. and which is the city's latest landmark. and it is located in the inner sunset neighborhood. and the art deco section of the building was constructed in 1932 and just stream line modern addition was added in 40. and the intention is to rehab tait the structure to current

standards and to restore the facade to the period of significance and it has expensive water damage due to failed plumbing systemed and failed and improperly detailed system and foundations. and the dry rot has resulted in extensive exterior and interior finished damage, of the damage to the substrate and the substructure. and that the reconstruction of the substrate and the sub, sorry. and the construction of the substrate and the substructure requireds the removal of the exterior finishes and the door and window systems many of which are deter ated and part of the replacement a new water proofing system is to be integrated with the replacement finishes and the door and window systems. the proposal includes work at the primary facade and the landmark space and the landmarked interior courtyard and includes the repairs and construction where the severe

deteration prohibits the repairs and so when it is quickly go through it in more detail and the project sponsors will describe it for you in their presentation. >> as a primary facade they will rebuild the structure almost 100 percent, in kind, as this section is deter ated down here. and then, at the art decco portion of the facade it appears that the structure is in fair condition and they will be able to repair and retain the wall structure in place. they will also replace the deter ated stucco in kind, and upon completion of the structural work and repaint the front to match the 1940s light with black detailed paint scheme and they will also replace the 2 story medal frame, lobby window with the two wood frame windows flanking

the entry at the first and second floors all in kind. and i do have a new detail for the medal framed, lobby window. and which they were able to submit this week and we will look closely to the original glazing profile and then what is, it is shown in your packets what i shown in your packets has rectangular and what is submitted will have a spoked profile. >> and next, there will, rebuild the raised planner beds in the front and set backyard area and replace the non-historic glading with a raised black tile to closely match the original with the tile and the metal detail as shown in the 1940 photograph and the product sample of the tile of what they are planning to use and next they will replace the damaged metal front doors in kind also, to replace the handle