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

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 handles to match the original 1940s design and next they will replace the 2 damaged metal projecting curved over hangs over the entry and at the art or the stream line and the section of the building, and they will plan to match the original 1940s design and also recreate and install the light fixture as shown in the 1935 and the 1940s photograph. and they will lastly repair and reenstall the historic box as shown in 1940 photograph. at the courtyard, they plan to rebuild the structure as the walls are deter ated and the foundation on this is insufficient. >> the courtyard, they plan to replace the deter ated structure and stucco in kind

wanting to match the existing pattern and also they plan to replace in kind the 20 wood framed windows and doors and they also plan to remove the spoked roof. and it was the source of the water intrusion and we place this with a flat roof in conformance with the other roof lines in the courtyard. and last, they would like to add one arch headed wood frame and the window on the east wall of the courtyard that will match the existing historic windows on that wall. at the third floor, and on the south wall which is not visible from the front or from the street, they plan to replace an existing door and a glass, block window wall with a new door and two new double hung windows and roughly in the same opening and as the interior they plan to replace the non-historic floor tile in the lobby with a new 24-inch square

marble tile, and the pattern is to be decided on. on a later date and they plan to empty the opening through the lobby and they can insert a sheer wall. and the project description is incorrect and they will be able to save the existing door just fix it shut and put the door behind that. >> they plan to repair the existing lobby chandaleir and to repaint and match the walls. >> the owner has subcured the stabilization of the landmark building and the work is involved in the extensive repairs and the replacement of the system and of water and electrical and trainage and heating system and the staff approved an administrative for the non-visible facades based

on the requirements of article ten and the secretary of the interior standards, the staff has determined that the work is compatible with the designs of the building and the owner has also asked trembel to have a separate analysis and they also said that it will meet the approval. >> at the primary facade we found that the proposed treatment in the appropriate and necessary for the rehabilitation of the landmark building of the water and damage requires that many historic features will be replaced, and we are asking however, that these areas are properly documented and drawing photographs prior to me approval so that we can assure that the least amount will be removed as possible. >> the material subtaouses are proposed to the cost availability or durbility concerns that they are appropriate in keeping with the

character of the historic building and they found that the window and the doors and the adequate care have been taken to document the featured so that they can be replicated in kind and we will also support the replication of the light features based on the historic photographs and the propairing of the clock. at the courtyard, the staff found that the alteration in the roof form and also for the addition on the one new window opening would pb in keeping with the character of the courtyard and would not remove any special design or features. and at the regarding the work at the third floor and south wall, staff finds that the original wall openings will remain essentially the same as i mentioned causing minimal removal of the historic materials and that the modifications do not effect any character defining features of the building and also that this change will not be a result from the public right-of-way and regarding the work at the

interior, and staff found that the proposed floor tile is in keeping with the art deco style of the building and that it is an appropriate substitute material. staff also finds that the premoval of the opening and infilled the opening between the lobby and the display case will be or will not effect any characters or planning futures of the space. lastly, the staff, supports the repair of the interior wall finishes and the wall chandalier and that they will be drawn prior to construction, the department staff recommends approval with the conditions of the proposed project and we proposed the 7 conditions and first that prior to issuance of any building permits proposing alteration of the landmark and

the lobby the sponsor shall submit the drawings that drar identify the rehabilitation of the space and including the fixture and finishes and second that prior to the issuance of any building permits that the alteration or demolition of the primary facade, the project sponsor shall document the deteration for all of the features with the photography and that the project sponsor shall submit the planned drawings that clarify the extent of the dry rot and termite damage and deteration, as part of the building permit, the sponsor shall provide product specification and existing and proposed shop drawings for the futures to be replicated including the entry doors, light fixtures and the awnings and this will all be submitted for review and approval by a preservation staff. fourth, that as part of the building permit, the project sponsor shall provide a protection plan and during

construction and it identifies any needed repair or cleaning treatments. fifth, that the preservation staff may review and approve the clading with the color and it shows that it closely matches the historic painted finish and 6th that all material samples including the window frame tile sampled and the glass box sampled provided by the applicant will be submitted to the department for retention until the department is completed and that the preservation staff will arrive to approve prior to the work to make sure that the details are matched. and so that completes my presentation. and the property owner, jeff is here to explain the project in more detail and give you visuals and the project engineer and contractor i believe are also here, if you have any questions for them. thank you. >> i just have a question. >> did you visit to the site?

>> i have not been on this site because it has been under construction, and just to stabilize the building in the last couple of months it has been hard to arrange access to the site. but i would be... the site as part of the conditions of approval. >> thank you. >> so has anyone from the planning staff seen this actual like the condition of the front doors or the windows or anything yet? >> we have only been provided photographs by the project sponsor. >> all right. >> and i believe that the staff is also here and i believe to discuss the project and i believe that it is the... that the owner could clarify that for you. >> thank you. >> and commissioner, the department staff and designation staff is recently designated did tour the entire site and did evaluate and they did see the conditions at the sight during the time of designation. >> and if we could hear from the project sponsor.

>> my name is jeff darby and i would like to thank the commission for considering proposal and everybody from the building and the planning department's forgiveness and especially mary brown who actually pushed for the landmarking of the building. and i would also like to bring to the commission's attention, that this project would have been totally impossible, without the professional skill advice and mentoring while the general contractor, kevin macen who is in the back, and the room, and also, about structural engineer o'neil and i have seen the people working miracles because with the buildings like this you can't move structural ibeams and you have to use the beams unless you man handle them into the building, thank you all very, very much.

>> and we are very excited to not only bring back to a truly unique building to help in some small way in the neighborhood. we have already undertake rn and it is proposed and the path of the presentation that i put together and it was included in the packages, and the biggest issue with this building was near death it was horrendously savaged by two nights and it was destroyed, 25 percent of the structural integrity and i am thinking now that we said enough about all of the structural issues and we feel a little bit like the last samarui and tell me how he died. i will tell you how he lived. and that is how i feel about the building and we have gone

into and. and we recently uncovered. and it was the history is all about us and there were more in the buildings where we lived and from them, we can begin to understand what shape pass lives of people and i have been lucky during my career to have lived in great cities with beautiful architecture and paris has the gorgeous, and london with the great natural museums and the science museum and the recent with the railway station and the san francisco historic buildings, and the much younger era and in the modest era this building is unique and not just for what they did and also for those who worked in lived in the building in later year. most of you don't know this played an exciting role in the 60s when san francisco was the start of capitol for psychedelic rock bands, i remember those times very well because 45 years ago this summer, i