goh, commissioner peterson is absent, commissioner hwang. director goldstein: welcome back to the march 9, 2011, meeting of the board of supervisors. we will have our last item. secretary pacheco: and no. 9, appeal number 10-108, richard and cher zillman versus the

historic preservation commission, for the property located at 280 divisadero street, appealing the denial of a september 1, 2010, to the appropriateness. this is case number 2008.0312a. >> i did do a site visit. it looked to me that the windows were original. the roof was a mansard type. there was a seam, the owner pointed this out to me, which could have been from a larger door being there. that was a seam in the siding.

the ceiling and walls had apparently been clad with wood, which was then stacked against the walls. there was a second floor, and we could see upstairs. there were scares that had been leading up their that were painted but -- there were stairs. they had been removed and were laying there. there were three fixed windows in the rear of the property. they appear to be property line windows that were framed in. they were covered with plastic bags, so that we had to remove the bags in order to see that they were framed in, and there

were windows, standing outside, there were windows on the south side of the second floor and also the roof, and that is all i have. later. commissioner hwang: i want to disclose that i also did a site visit, and all of the things that president goh observed, all of the bags on the windows. i did not observe the framed in windows. commissioner fung: i will disclose that i made a site visit. i walked through the main building from the street rule, and i went into the rear yard and entered into the rear structure and buildings. -- i walked through the main building from the street. vice president garcia: i climbed

the steps across the street on divisadero so i could have a vantage point. director goldstein: thank you. >> good evening, president goh, commissioners. i am the applicant. we bring you a beautiful project. you are our last hope. i beg you, please, do not leave us with a design choice by the city that we will not be comfortable looking at for the rest of the days. -- the rest of our days. now, i would like to introduce our attorney. >> thank you, and to my right is an associate attorney in my office. when the voters several years ago created a new historic preservation commission with a real veto powers on projects, many predicted that this would result in a number of appeals to

your board. well, it has not happened, and the fact that this is the first such appeal is historic, and it also means that the historic preservation commission and its staff have done a good job of balancing the needs a preservation and the needs of property owners and should be congratulated on that and, of course, when my brief refers to 13 different planners over the years where we believe have made mistakes, and one man was not one of them, but mistakes were made, and the previous advisory board could not come to a decision on the appropriate design, even after some simplification of the design at their request. now, just before this project was to go before the planning commission, they asked that the eir be done over from scratch because it was decided that it was mistaken in not calling it a the facto demolition.-- a de

facto demoliton. -- demolition. there were vacations, changes in jobs and assignments, and that was mostly responsible for this amount of time. i say mostly because mr. zillman had to deal with some life threatening illness. the planning department recently gave you some yellow highlighting examples from the interior guidelines, some from some standards, some from the reconstruction standards. they are very different, but i would maintain that perhaps neither should be applied. this is a special situation, or perhaps, from each, but let me

talk about the a little bit. the rehabber standards are supposed to be used when there is some building left -- the rehab standards. the reconstruction is used when you have varied little evidence that something is there, but you may have narrative stories or perhaps some foundations that you can figure out archaeological it. now, we do not have either of these situations -- that you can figure out archaeological linked -- archaeologically. this is why i suggest two options, including applying none of them. there are some guidelines that should be applied here and are very clear. the project should not confuse the public between what is original, what is very old, and what is new. the structure cannot distract

from the main structure, and the main structure here is the beautiful and historic old house. now, i think there is at least four or five reasons. you will see that the building in the rear is a very diminutive scale. you will see there are victorian note -- victorian structures. there is the ornate and is that is sometimes 10 feet tall. there is an amalgamation of styles which really confused a few people. the cross section of the cottage, which you just saw, shows it is sunken and diminutive. the public cannot see it from a public place. you will hear from preservation

people tonight, including in the eir comments, and it was stated that there is a complete lack of integrity and that the building was in serious disrepair when the zillmans purchased it, not a case of deferred maintenance. "a reasonable manner." as for economic feasibility, the only way my clients would be able to finance this -- they believe they have designed this project in a manner that makes the unit one that renters would be more excited to live in, the most excited to live in, and the planning department roux and exterior of a barn but gave no idea of how the interior should look -- and the planning department drew an exterior of a barn.

it is a longstanding policy of the planning department that they do not do it for a property owner. they just critique what a property owner does. i do not know why it was done here. it is confusing. there was a great or nakedness, much more than that of a barn -- a greatcoat ornateness. they are saying it is a carriage house. we are confused. carriage houses were as ornate as the front buildings. finally, note i would like to say -- finally, i would like to say that the zillmans would be

the least likely people to confuse the public between a new project and something that is very old. the commission has left no alternative, which means if you disapprove tonight, they have to go through an eir and other processes. excuse me. i would just like to say to people behind you to shorten their testimony. it has been a long evening. the commissioner has asked me that only the first few take their appropriate minutes and that those that follow either do not speak or perhaps say in 30 seconds something they need to say, because it is getting late, but we appreciate your comments and just acknowledge that you are here, i would like all of you in support to stand up. thank you very much, and they for coming.

-- cote and thank you for coming. -- and thank you for coming. director goldstein: mr. frye. >> to a landmark property in san francisco is a fairly typical process. before it the board of supervisors makes a decision to land market property, -- before the board of supervisors make a decision, they vet it through several committees. when this project was designated, the carriage house was always considered an important part of this individual landmark, and the carriage house exists today visually, while not maybe in its condition, but maybe the same way it was in 1988, so that gives the planning department and indication that the building still retains a high level of

integrity from the time it was designated. now, to just back up a little bit and talk about the certificate of appropriateness. the c of a is necessary, and we are talking about the exterior walls and roof line of the carriage house and then the main residence at the front property line. projects that meet the secretary -- at me to the secretaries standards receive a certificate of appropriateness -- projects that need to the secretary -- meet the secretary's standards receive a certificate of appropriateness. they cover everything from new construction to simple maintenance. standards are applied to the entire landmark, regardless of

its visibility or its location on the site. because the board of supervisors designated both buildings was at 280 divisadero, the standards 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.