schooling. they get self-confidents and today, we had a residual and a lot of time go on stage and i hope they get the bug and want to dance for the rest of their test, test, test, test, test test

>> good afternoon we will call this meeting historic preservation commission to order. >> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular meeting for wednesday, november 20, 2013. like to take roll at this time. (calling names) commissioner wu is expected to be absent. at this time members of the public any address the agenda expect agenda items with respect to agenda items your item will

be addressed at that time. i have no speaker cards. any member of the public wish to speak on non-agenda items >> that places you under the regular calendar. there's only one item on the green connection if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> seeing no questions we'll move on. item two the staff report and announcements. tim fry commissioners, i have two items to report to you. first, i wanted to give you an updated on the silver cottages work has stopped they site but on monday shelly of our staff

and myself met with the project sponsors reviewed the condition of the cottages. and they're working on security measures foyer the cottages while they awe witting wait the lawsuit. the protection plan is short term hopefully and it will begin in less than 90 days. the project spokesperson will know more this week and mark hal beggar is in the audience and happy to answer any questions. we're working closely together and hoping to have a resolution to any stoucht issues in the short-term. the second is last week, i gave a brief presentation at the cities graffiti board from the

graffiti incident at the high beggar bank. the advisory board had questions about the historic preservation commission relating to abatement. they're trying to encourage property owners to put in a report. i expressed our willingness to work with them to achieve some of those golds and we'll be coordinating with the department of public works to see how we can work better together. p that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. seeing no questions we'll move on >> commissioners that places you under commission matters president's report. >> just an update on the real

our program we've got a couple of gentlemen helping out. we set a launch date of march one. we're getting a a lot more traction from real terrors i have been talking when they may want to train all the real terrors for the first banish it could be a good kick start. a green good friend wants to have it at their site >> commissioner could you give more details. i know i remember discussing it earlier in the year but i think it's an cellist e exciting project >> the real touch to a lot of the folks in buying home in the

district and surveys are happening throughout the city. so the idea was we get realtors trained and preservation approved saying i understand the preservation rules so california preservation foundation is putting together four or five we came up with >> 5. >> yeah. 5 different training items. and i can actually i'm not prepared inform give you a brief >> is that a certification. >> yeah. through preservation and they'll role it out statewide. >> okay. >> and it's all online training not having to show up. >> thank you for your initiative. >> and thanks to the staff for

the help. that's it for president's report >> moving to item 4 damgs of draft minutes for november 13th. >> commissioners any comments or corrections. any member of the public wish to speak seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i move we adapt. >> second. >> thank you. >> on that motion to adapt the draft minutes (calling names) so moved, commissioners, unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 5 commissions questions and comments. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i have met with one of the board members ted about the project. just to discuss he wanted to

know more about our process and what if there were any issues that we thought about it. >> thank you. any other disclosures. seeing none, we've we'll move on >> commissioners that is for items proposed for continuance items. for 940 grove street. this is being proposed by staff to be continued indefinitely. >> there was some interest from the project sponsor but they're not here. >> can you define what indefinitely means. >> it simply means it has to be renoticed. >> city attorney can i speak to this item real quickly give an update. >> to the item.

>> yeah. real quick. basically should we continue it that is whether or not we do mr. fry and myself are going out to 940 grove on friday afternoon. the packet wasn't complete and so we moved it forward. so we will get a list of what they need to do, what items need to be put into the package and calendar it >> just to further clarify if he choose to december 4th and continue it indefinitely at that point. >> so anyone from the public wish to examine on this seeing

none. >> i'll move to continue this indefinitely. >> second. >> on that motion to continue 6 indefinitely (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. and places you under our consent calendar all matter are routine and maybe activity upon by a single-action. there will be no separate vote and unless the staff or public wishes for it. one item case at 3101 request

for certificate of appropriateness >> anyone want to pull this from the consent calendar seeing none. public wish to do so seeing none. do we have a motion >> i move we approve this. >> motion and a second. >> motion to approve with conditions (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you under our regular calendar request for a certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners department staff. the project before you is typical of a appointness to

separate the notre dame lot. the 1996 subdivision created one for the delores street and another for the st. joseph hall at the rear plus the adjacent open space to the south. it currently houses the children's day school a central playground area and ann lower housing. it is for 3 temporary clamor structures for an additional 10 and a half years. it would create additional spaces with approval that was asked for by the advisory board to be removed after 10 years it's set to expire in 2015.

as of november 1, '89 the department had received one comment in opposition to the proposal and over 80 e-mails in support. department staff recommendation approval with condition to insure with the prototype work is in compliance with the plan. one that the project sponsor will remove the 3 temporary clamors from the date of planning commission approval for the conditional use authorization and two, that the project sponsor will maintain the 3 clamors in save and sanitary condition any structure that is not properly maintained will be corrected. 3 the site including landscaping

will keep the temporary site screened from view and for the project sponsor will provide an update to the commission in the form of an informational hearing on the school fund-raising and the capital and lastly ever two years beginning at the date of the approval the project sponsor will have a written update on the city hall raising efforts and general capital improvements in accordance with the timeline that was provided to the staff for consideration. the project sponsors are present and can answer questions also i'm available for any questions. that concludes my presentation >> thank you. commissioners any questions of staff. >> yeah. thank you. i'm pretty new could you give me

a agreeing a little bit of background. i assume the conditions aren't able to be complild with >> the project sponsors can talk about that. this is a multiple phase expansion to the schools facility and it seems like the timeline has been adjusted for the fundraising to advance that phase schedule. they're not exactly where they thought they would be >> and does the sponsor have a presentation. >> they do. >> okay. >> we are the sponsor. this is moll i didn't shows he head of school and i'm valerie

i'm the acting project manager on a series of projects at the school. i think you were asking why the first 10 years. when the commission give us approval for the temporary facilities bacterin years ago they were for on a increase in a super class size. they were put out in accordance with the planning commission. once they were in and started to looking at st. joseph's hall it's a difficult building to make work per the building code for children grades 2 and under you have to have separate exiting. when we start to look at that we wanted to add two facilities to the site but those two plants

starting to a impact not only the play area what every school would want it wasn't adding up. that at the same time the school was looking it's ambitions and a for the future decided it made accepts to increase the size of the school to have two classes per grade. that decision made it clear they weren't going to get enough square footage in a way that's satisfactory to the city and to the neighborhood and school. they starting to look around the neighborhood for ultimate facilities and purchased the this on about delores street two or three years ago and sought non-entitlements and got through the process and that will be the

middle school. that's the fundraising and moll i didn't will tell you. we have got all our permits on 61 delores but the last step of which is the porthole to be removed. that's why the first 10 years didn't result in removing the portholes. >> so wore happy to have this into our middle school. wove been down hero a lot working on that process we had to turn it back into institutional use. we hope to complete all the improvements in the next 10 years >> if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> okay. thank you. commissioners any other

questions for staff or sponsor >> question. i'm wondering why this isn't a administration thing rather than coming before this board. the portables aren't attached to any landmark. it feels more like an administrative type of problem >> sure tim fry. it doesn't fit nicely into the categories in our delegation because it's a project that not only requires review by this commission and the planning commission. we felt this was important to bring it before you. if you look at it from a technical standpoint it's like construction on the landmark site all be it temporary. >> i'd like the public to be a

part of it. i have one speaker card but ms. hoffman you're the sponsor so do i have any public comment. >> i'll move approval approval. >> we have a motion and second. thank you >> on that motion (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 9 for the next case at 660 california street for consideration to adapt a resolution. >> good afternoon. commissioners mary brown department staff.

i'm presenting the staffs remedies of 660 california street the old st. marys building. the building is for an article 11 contributey rating. this was initiated by the archdiocese and it was repaired. at the conclusion of my preservation they'll talk about a change of designation. to summarize the 4 story building was designed by chuck and construction was completed in 1966. it's located outside the market skepticism district.

it meets the criteria for a category 3 for the following >> first, the information above the building as alp low docketed in the report makes it rode for rating. the building also appears to possess a very good in association with architecture design and it excellent in association with the environment sorry with relationship to the environment and finally, at 47-year-old it's age eligible. the subject believe when it was 19 years old it was classified as a non-rated building. the characteristic buildings are identified telephone number on pages 5 and 6 and concluding the

connecting bridge and art ways and the design by mark adams. it is - the department recommends that a solution for a change of designation to a change of category that building. it's included in your packet and if adapted today, this item will be considered for future distribution. that concludes my presentation and i'll turn it over for a short premise and i'll present letters for the commission for the property owner. >> good afternoon. i'm christen architecture historian at page and turn ball i have a brief

presentation okay. my presentation provides a few illnesses and the summary of finding for article 11 change of designation. you'll see here an aerial view where the wrecky is located on california street adjacent to old st. marys church there's a

bridge and another bridge that connects behind it. a couple of images of the primary facade the one on the left and a close up view looking at northwest at the entry level. a few other images here. the preexisting covered bridge that connects it to the sanctuary on the left it previously connected the rectory that existed in this location before. a detail of the stairwell openings immediately adjacent to that bridge in the left photo and a picture of the north bridge connecting to the facility and on the rhetoric of that photo there's a bump out

that's the exterior view of the interior at the bottom the chapel with the window design by march adams. a here's an s o m drawing of the primary facade pled in 1964 the drawing and an illness from 1967 that shows the complete believe adjacent to the church and also the hartford building on the other side. so here we go or here's our summary of criteria. as mary said it has to be located outside a preservation district it's 47 years old. we found the building does appear individually important for several reasons first with

the local effort by catholic church to engage with contemporary art and architecture to create building that resonated with modern audience. we did a lot of research and found that in san francisco bay area the order embraced part of the art. in its design old st. marys directy you put a face on the oldest patience. and the st. marys facility was the oldest building in san francisco. second it's a work of master under the leadership of charles. s o m distinguished itself within the firm and with

architecture designs that pay greater attention to environmental and historic context and demonstrated greater expressions of modernism. we looked at the other work across the criteria country. the old mary facility is the old approach design as one of bassett design that exemplified use principles. and in association with that the building appears important individually as on a early design of conceptual design. bassett oral history statements make clear his interests in context all design it's a typical at the national level

and is an example of the design by the chief design partner in san francisco. under criterion for the building must be rated very good or excellent or in relation with the environment. it is very good with the architecture design it was noted after design in a feature in a magazine that feature was part of and only 10 years after the buildings construction it was given a 2 rating in the 1976 architecture survey meaning it was rated as approximately the top 10 of building stock. we found the building appeared excellent in the environment as noted in the 1976 survey the building was designed to smooth

the contribution to the east and old st. marys church on the west. it employes the use of concrete window to the golf course window and it is particularly success e successful it is matched with the shoulder of the church. the window openings carry the height of the church doors and window and the first concrete window successfully blend with the insurance building and the regular i do grid. we've found that 660 california street meets the fourth criterion for the designation. underground for demonstration the building was n