installation, a mockup of the metal and the materials and integral cover or finish shall be reviewed and approved by the department preservation staff and more of a stucco finish shall be reviewed at the project site and on proved by the department staff and the panels along the north and the south sides shall be painted to match the color of the stucco. the color and panels should match or pick on the colors and on the colors found in the jackson square landmark district. the project site was posted with the hearing notices and the notices were sent out with the requirements of the planning code and the department has received five letters and 103 signed copies of the form letter in support of the project. and the department has also received telephone calls with concerns about the scope of

work that is proposed currently and additionally, and a letter from mr. morton was received yesterday after the publication of the report further out lying the concerns regarding the proposed work and a copy is available for the public and also been forwarded to the commission. >> and specifically the letter raises the concern that as proposed, when you try the extent of any alterations do not meet the standards and are to contend and cannot be exempt from seca. >> it should be noted that the project was evaluated in 2005 after the removal of the materials except for the montgomery street and had received a certificate of approval. the project was received an exemption at that time. the current proposal is a

slight modification. includes the stucco and as well as adding a much smaller roof deck area and penthouses on the roof. the current proposal is an attempt by the new owners of the building to finish construction that was started by the previous owner, and it will not remove additional historic fabric from the building. this will replace the historic fabric that was previously removed with the compatible replacement material to bring back the building and still convey the building as a resource. as such the department has found that the proposed work meets the standards and the requirement of article ten and therefore, it is exempt from the secua. the project sponsor is here to scribe the project for me and the details of the skop of work. >> that includes the administration and if the staff is available for any questions that you have. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the

sponsor now? >> is there a volume up and down on that thing for the speakers? no. >> just the mic. yeah. okay. >> hello. yes, okay, great, thanks. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is alisa stags and i am with page and turner and we are the architect for this project. the buildings are located in the jackson square district on montgomery street. the engineering buildings were constructed between 1849 and 1854 and are landmarks 9 and 10. and feature the brick construction and cast iron plasters and a regular pattern and was set parapit. >> just to give you a brief

history, of the project, in 2002, a certificate of appropriateness was approved and allowed the removal of the bricks for structural improvements. it was removed between 2004 and 2007. the intent at that time was to store the brick and then reenstall it. in 2007. >> and it was approved and allowed for residential use in the building. >> and your construction staff and the owner went bankrupt and in 2011, the present owner bought the building, and the bricks were not part of the building and there was a change also, in management of the storage facility where the bricks were being stored and the bricks. >> there will be no deviation for the montgomery street. and the 2002 approved. and so the holding place 2002

and 2007 calls for the reinstallation of the brick. because the original brick is no longer available we had to consider the alternative we originally considered them. and in june we met with the arc and stucco was recommended as a prefered alternative. >> we agree that it will be preferable. as the buildings were original with the stucco which was removed when they were renovated in the 1950s. >> it also a finish that will be compatible in the context of the priest or several buildings right around that area that are glad and stucco. >> and the windows and the holding place will be replaced with wood, windows that are similar to the original.

>> the north and south facades are party walls and require to be rated under the previous, the aopposed approach is to put them with bricks and now we are proposing that because of constructbility issues that they be glade with the panels and the stucco wells turn the corner at the holding street for about 4 feet. and mocked up the matal panel and reviewed them with the planning staff and proposing a gray panel which will be distinct from the brick but will not attract the undue attention. >> and so the courtyard, we are proposing, originally proposed as brick and now we are proposing stucco. >> and for the courtyard windows we are proposing metal glad windows. at the roof we will provide an outdoor private space for the tenants and make it accessible

with an elevator and it is small in scale and set back from the street facade. flat line studies have shown you that they were not negatively set back so far, and we took the photo to show that the impact of the penthouse is very little. it is not visible from the north side of the building and as you walk down the north side of the street it is not visible a street across and it becomes visible with the corner and washington as shown in the red story poles, on top of the building. and these are the materials that we are proposing stucco and the grass, guardrail and pavers, and multicolored slate for the pavers at the roof top. >> and thank you, we also have

lauren from gary g's office to answer any questions. that is it. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> commissioners? >> commissioner pearlman? >> i have a question. and it might be an architect question but you may know the answer. >> i noticed in the peckage there were drawings that kind of showed a bead board wood paneling in the courtyard and i wondered what happened to that? >> the materials that were stored outside included a lot of the bead and included the furniture and the windows and as well as the brick, and all of those materials are now using. >> but could the board be put back? and rather than just stucco? >> i know that is an arc question that we didn't ask back then. >> that is something that we could consider. >> okay. >> thank you.

>> commissioners? any other questions? >> seeing none, we have several speaker cards. john freed? followed by miss plat, stewart martin. >> good afternoon, my name is john free and can you hear me okay? >> my name is john freed and i am a lawyer here in san francisco. my office used to be at 700 montgomery and while the office was at 700 montgomery and i met nancy bella. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> and part of the story that goes on with building was that it was melvin's dying wish to create a sort of college for new young lawyers, the first two floors were to be office space and the upper floors were residents for new lawyers to kind of learn from the more established lawyers on how to do it and have the collegiate

atmosphere. nancy promised that to her husband, part of the condition of building and reconstructing this building was to keep the historic landmark and keep it intact. so they was required and she took out loans to do this, but take the bricks down and she had each brick numbered and she had each brick stored along with the iron gates from new orleans, and that was so costly that it ultimately caused her financial demise. and she went bankrupt. this storage of the bricks, the storage company, auctioned off those bricks and low and behold, we know who bought those bricks. in fact, i appeared in the bankruptcy court and by the way i only heard of this hearing earlier this week as i was visiting verona which is also on this street. >> we know where the bricks

and readily available and the east west bank to the wholly owned subsitary and we believe that this is part that was offered to bank for the storage fee. >> and they are readily available and all of that is being asked that they get paid back for the storage fees and so, it seems like a complete waste to throw the stucco up on a historic building which may are may not be bank owned rye now. but i would hate to lose what is not just part of that block, but part of the whole atmosphere of what is a san francisco lawyer, to be a montgomery street lawyer is a status of prestige and to start throwing up stucco is devastating. i have my business cards available for anyone who wishes to know where the bricks are and the current cost of storage

is. >> that is incredible news. commissioners, stewart norton. you got my letter i assume. i have ten copies if you didn't. >> thank you. >> in a nutshell, it says wow, how could this be exempt from the seca review this is not a minor alteration and this is a major thing, by the way you have a really important decision to make on this building, the landmarks do not intend and part of the historic district on the national register and to quote, what is my preservation buddies, if this get approved as planned we have a pathetic wall. and i think that explains a lot of things. i have talked to mino who was

the city storage proprietor who left his storage space of december 31 of last year and after i met with the arc, in june, i talked to him and he said, i went out snooping and i found some of the brick. and they were in boxes of two by three by three, i think or four. and he went snooping around, and he found a bunch of the brick, we don't know how much. but according to jay's report way back in 2003 and 4 and 5, we don't need the total amount of brick, we need those are the 1,000s, and cubic yards for the brick on the facade, and it said so in the report. >> i said it at the arc that the stucco would be the answer if we can't find the brick.

this guy came out, and just spoke before me and i don't know his name yet. any way, i am also again the roof deck and the elevator penthouse as i stated in the letter it is not appropriate, even the smaller, larger one that was not approved by the landmark's board in 2005. >> and you know, you have got a very big decision on this one which don't let this building go just for the sake of getting the building finished, there is a lot of neighbors here that are very an sus to get the scaffolding down and this whole thing has been a disaster, don't let that emotion effect the building, it is one of our best buildings. thank you. >> iment to support the letter that you received from stewart norton and it was actually crafted within the xhupt and had i been around yesterday i would have like to have signed

it. and also very concerned about the kedex, i don't think that it is a kedex. and i think that just to throw that out there is ridiculous. i am worried that you are never going to see the montgomery side again and nobody has seen it for a long time. the windows seem to be gone. and i don't know where those windows are, have they disappeared with all of the other windows? i mean, the fact of all of these things disappearing is not acceptable. going through the reports that you have, i found that there are 228 crates of bricks at some point and that just does not happen, you also at the arc asked that the bricks are looked for by the project sponsor and i would have assumed that your staff would have helped out with that as well. i think and i didn't hear mr. norton say so, but i understand that he called again after your arc meeting and that the man said that he had heard from the spro ject sponsor that they did

not want the bricks, now i don't care if they want them or not, if they are available they need to use them. both under the earlier cof a and also because these two buildings are among the most important in jackson square from the age standpoint and etc.. there is not all of that much stucco going on in hoteling place and they should not be stuccoed unless there is no other alternative. >> no one has also cleared on what size the windows might be or if of what material. some people says that they might look like they did but there is nothing specific here. and that is really important, the building seems to be tall and her nobody is talking about that. the whole thing is just auful. as far as staff is concerned, i would like to point out that the arg report has a problem on page 3 and saying that the buildings date from 1953 and

1954 instead of 1853 and four and if someone would make that into the record because we don't want later on to have somebody come up with that. i also had the problems with your motion. and typos. i know with the computers i know that it must be hard to prove, but i think that it is really important. and the motion at the bottom of page 3, and may i continue? >> 30 seconds. >> under general plan compliance, i think that the permit to alter should be called a certificate of appropriateness. and on page 4, at section 2.7 it is the historic district should be the jackson square and on page 5 g, i don't believe that the project meets

the secretary of the interior standard, thank you. >> thank you. >> and i have a speaker card from jake turm bo but i have to ask the city attorney because he is the principal at the company that is the sponsor, and i don't know if he could also public comment. >> it seems like and we gave time to the project sponsor and to make a presentation and are they allowed to also have public comment. >> if it is part of the project team then they speak during the project sponsor's opportunity. you certainly could ask follow up questions. >> i am going to if you don't mind i am going to move on to other public comment, just because you are principal at the company. >> public comment? >> good afternoon, members of the commissioner, with san francisco heritage and previously stated these two buildings are among the city's

earliest and most significant buildings in the earliest landmarks and first emphasized that they have not reviewed this pro-yekt and not rendered an opinion with the appropriateness of stucco verses vaneer but i do have a few comments today. and the buildings are both among the most significant and unfortunately they have become a symbol of the demolition by neglect and no fault of the owner, every effort should be made to incourt the original fabric into the proposed project it seems to me that legitimate issues have been raised regarding the issues of the original brick and materials and it would seem to me to be premature to come to a decision today. heritage off or whatever support it can to resolving and clarifying the existence of the original material and the

feasibility of corporating them into the proposed design. >> any other member of the public that wish to speak on this item? >> seeing none, we will close the public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> >> public comment? >> yes. >> we put our names in. >> oh, you did. >> okay, sorry we did not pick that up >> we will reopen public comment. >> thank you very much. >> my name is clod peroso and impart of a group that owns the property immediately next door. as well as the building next door to that on the corner of jackson which is 463, 473 jackson and believe it or not, this building has been shut

down and scaffolded to about 27 years and the issues that it has caused for everyone immediately in the neighborhood are fairly significant, we have a very good occupant of the building of 737, 32 who because of the staff and the fact that the building is set and disrepair for 24 years and in the morning before they open the doors the employees have to come out and sweep and hose down urine and fecal matter and needles and etc. from the folks who have see sen shally encamped themselves within the buildings, and scaffolding which is almost impossible to secure and we had over the years, four break ins as the people review the scaffolding allowed to come down to the roof and argue and burglar our tenants and so it is a real problem, it is a real problem

and they just blieted the block and began to bliet the neighborhood and all of a sudden we have a developer who has come in and purchased the property and taking a risk in terms of trying to enhance the property, and he wants to put the 12 residential units in there which are full of the people who are going to work in the neighborhood and shop in the neighborhood and enhance the neighborhood and revitalize, the neighborhood. and so, belief me as neighbors who are next door and many of us in this group, we know that the decisions in this building are going to effect us the most and we are right there and it is going to effect us in the short run and the medium run and the long run and we are not looking to make a rash decision or anything because we are going to feel the effects immediately and forever. however, this group has come in and been very thoughtful and detail oriented and made presentations to us and shown us the elevations and all of the plans and i have been

transparent and we are pleased with what they have, in terms of the roof garden, it is a great amendy for all of the residents and good looking and 30 more seconds and in terms of the elevator, it is not a penthouse in the formal sense it is a mechanical structure in order to be necessary to have the elevator come up to serve the disabled people as well. in terms of stucco we can find it on the rear exterior of the property. and most on the block or hoteling have a stucco or a painted brick and there is one natural brick building, with the small building and we highly encourage this property is go forward. >> thank you. >> quen and followed by angela hamby. i am calurd quen and i am one

of the owners directly across the alley from the building. in the year 2000 i bought the building and since then, i have converted it into three condos and one commercial and two residential. and actually two commercial and one residential. and we have put up with this for 23 years. my property value has dropped tremendously. and when i sold off the two condos, i lost a lot of money. people talked about how can you buy anything, across from this building, in san francisco, we have a lot of victoran buildings, the large majority of them, the facades are what are really significant. if you look at the back of the victor abuildings, they were built like cracker box and they

were simple and that is the same thing in jackson square. if you look around, you will see great deal of the buildings that the bricks have been painted over in the backs and a lot them in the front. what is important about this building is the two facades on montgomery street. my building is historical building number 1 1. these are 9 and 10. certainly i want to see something phenomenal happen and i remember with this plat and norton have had so many years to deal with this. the bricks that are being discussed, i can't imagine they are in very good shape because when they were torn out of there the mortar comes out and the bricks get compromised and if we were to put the bricks in there and paint them over, you would not notice a thing on the back side, the front side, i urge you to you know, review carefully, and make sure that it looks great.

but the back side we have homeless, and i have pictures of, you know, the dramatic effect that it has had and the people in my neighborhood. we have lost retail businesses and we can't rent our spaces people don't come down any more. it has been a really dramatic thing for a long time. we used to have 25 an teague dealers down there, we have 6 and we have offices coming in, instead of retail. so, you know, i went to the mayor willie browns 20 years ago to try to help the situation, we have gone through the city attorney. we have gone through so many different things, this is, you know, 150 yards from the major icon of the transamerica building and it is really negative effect on our city, our tourism and the whole

thing. thank you. >> miss hamby? >> i am the neighbor across the street, i live by the unit and the master building faces this and i was born and raised in the western neighborhood in a time when many were board bored of that. the property management issues and increased costs in the safety issues created by this bliet are tremendous and numerous security issues time and time again in the evenings. and our whole neighborhood agrees with this project, the developer has been wonderful to deal with in addressing all of our concerns because we want a historic neighborhood and they have been transparent and we need to remember that we live in an environmental matter, right now the climate is good and i can tell you that these will sell quickly and if the unique thing is too difficult

for this developer, we risk them walking away and ending up with the building and skaf fording because the retail markets are not right and i can't urge you strongly enough. there is no one in this room or city more impact and we are on board and we feel that having a green roof is a wonderful development in the urban environment and we are behind chicago and new york xh actually require the removal and instead of adding more hvac on and the raising of the height and my understand is to accommodate an elevator that will allow the disabled people to access the roof and so we are on board with this and we urge you to do the same, thank you very much. >> any other member of the public, whether you gave us a card or not. wish to speak? >> yeah, you were. >> we lost one card along the way. >> i am matsuda, from the 25

holaling hoa, and following up on angela's comments there were only two residential buildings, and we are obviously attracted to the historic square and we support the developer coming on board and taking this project on and seeing the completion of this building. i guess that renovation is a strong woerd, but evolution and seeing the bliet lifted. what we are concerned with is we are blue sky starved already and we are at the base of the financial district and also the cer csf that went up right in the sun arc and blocked a lot of our sunlight during more than half of the year. and we are very supportive of the developer, and working

through this project. what we do want to ask is that light blue sky, privacy issues are taken into consideration, for the other home owners, and we are building of eight condos, and two parcels, south of this project. and the penthouses that are already two penthouses on the roof. so i am not sure that if this is a third pept house being discussed but i would like to see some consideration of minimizing additional structures on the roof and the impact of a further height will have on the blue sky effect which is extremely minimal already. and just wanted to do a few months a year really. >> that said, again, we are encouraging the project, we just want the roof height and impact on blue sky to be considered. >> any other member of the public? >> seein