rather than the shanty, sort of a shanty right now. a shanty exists. not one of those types. >> good evening, my name is angela scott. live next door to them and i can see the carriage house through my bais not pretty but they do great work. i've seen the rental units that they have restored. i spent time with them. they are wonderful people. some day i would love to live in a unit as they have planned. i support them and i hope that you will too. thank you. next speaker. >> i actually live in one of their units. i just want to say they are

precious little gems of people. they take amazing care of their property. this is the only place where i have ever lived. i'm petrified to hang things on the wall. everything is in perfect condition. i think -- they will do the same thing to this renovation. it will be an amazing and great place to live. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is lisa and i'm the president of the neighborhood association. our board enthusiastically supports this project. you know, richard has been trying to help me get hinges in my house that would match my house. they really believe in preservation. they do a wonderful job on this project and we hope that you'll support them. >> thank you. next speaker? >> my name is skeeter jones. i build -- i've been building since 1972. that's about 39 years, victorian facades.

we all know richard. we're victorian enthusiasts. we know what we're looking at. i know one of the problems with this is what they call conjecture, making something up. i challenge the historic review board and i have seen their work and seen what they call what they think is historic and i think we know more than they do about historic preservation in san francisco. not all over the country but unique to san francisco. and i support richard and his enthusiasm for what we do for victorians in this city. i wish that we had more of a chance to continue what we do best by improving the city instead of letting it go the way that we all have done. thank you. next speaker. >> han sell -- in the -- i worked for them for the last three decades.

and i also do victorian restoration as well. and project is not really a restoration. so much as a folly. and a folly is an architectural dream or an idea that an owner of a building has, they want to put it on their property because they like that. and victorians basically are follies in themselves because they were catalog houses. you could order parts. you could design your house the way you wanted it. before ark teches decided that they had to put their -- people were buying house parts and having carpenters assemble them. now they have a carriage house in the back and they want to improve that and yes, it is not going -- >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is jim. i'm here to speak as the vice

president of san francisco victorian alliance, one of san francisco's oldest preservation organizations. we review this project very, very careful, discuss it thoroughly as you did to incite visits to understand it well and thank you for doing them and wholeheartedly support the renovation, restoration reinterpretation, whatever you want to cailt of this lovely property. we know the zone limits well and on a personal level now that i have done my official statement, all i can do is say that i agree with every comment that has been made about the integrity of these people, their respect for it. this is their home. they look out at it every day. they have done for buildings across the city wonderful things. they are not going to do anything bat for -- every day. -- bad for -- every day. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is roger reid.

i'm an interior designer near the city. of course i want to know what is happening with the drapery. it is so important to know that they will not only do the right thing with the exterior of this building but that they are going to do the right thing to the interior. they have spent so much time developing their design that it really does deserve to be moved through. i'm very much in support of them. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comments? ok. seeing none, we'll move into rebuttal. mr. gladstone. you have three minutes. >> hello again. mr. frye said this building retains a high level of

integrity. not only is that something that mark holbert doesn't agree with and chris buckley from alameda and oakland historic but neither did the planning commissioner at the hearing. i would like quickly to read a couple of things from what he said "is there really enough integrity left for this structure to continue to convey its historic significance? haven't the alterations severely reduced all or some of the seven aspebts of integrity"? why wasn't this carriage house compared with other carriage houses? the greater neighborhood? i don't believe the description of what would have been allowed -- of what would be allowed in this alternative would meet the reconstruction standards stating by the planning department. the planning department here is really in a minority in its opinions. chief frye and discussed earlier

the likelihood that the preservation board priest to this one or the h.b.c. has ever turned down all the e.i.r. alternatives that were put before it. basically killing a project unprecedented. but it was done here. mr. frye said our building is false -- but take a look at the barn. that planning staff has state as one of their two preferred alternatives. we think this is really the definition of false -- and by the way, the evidence shows that this was a carriage house. the horses were across the street. the barns were across the street. so planning is putting forward -- that is more speculative than youth we believe occurred there. i want to remind you that there is no project before the city, if you don't aprove this one. a new project would have to be designed.

it would have to go through a certificate of appropriateness. e.i.r. more consultants. more fees. a couple of years, my clients are exhausted. the neighborhood is exhausted. they have no more energy. and basically i wanted to point out that when the planning department says our clients design is extreme, please look at the second alternative preferred by planning. met alic siding. frosty glazz. that i think is extreme. and i would like to just simply say that we would really, really appreciate and the neighborhood and the zellmans ask you to consider the effort, the support and the comments of planning commissioner suingia, formerly a member of your board. thank you. >> thank you.

i have a question. about commissioner sugaya. you read from the e.i.r. but didn't he vote against certificate of appropriateness? >> no, there is no vote on the certificate of appropriateness by the planning commission. >> i'm sorry. oh, i see. >> he is not on h.p.c. thank you. >> mr. frye, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> department staff. i don't think anybody is disputing the integrity of the zellmans. they have made great contributions to preservation in san francisco. what we're talking about here is the integrity of the process. this is a landmark building. if the board of supervisors felt that this building retained enough integrity to be a landmark then the department needs to apply the standards appropriately and in regards to rehabilitation of the landmark. i would also like to clarify a few things that mr. gladstone

stated. the e.i.r. was certified by the planning commission. that mean it was adopted as being adequate and complete. there was no rejection of any alter e.i.r. they agreed that it was complete. they weres of the options that were provided or the alternatives. it is just an exercise. it is meant to explore various options. that doesn't mean those are all the options that could be explored. there are many options that could be floated for a project here and the department and the h.p.c. look forward to seeing some of those options if our disapproval is upheld. and finally, in closing, just to clarify what the department is this is what would be an approveable project at the site. it depends again how it is executed. if the alteration should be simple and designed to keeping

the character with a simple utilitarian qualities of the building and the evidence that we see at the -- at the site, and that any materials that are beyond repair should be replaced in kind and that the building should be brought up to code and again, just to reiterate, there has never been an issue regarding the conversion over the building into a residential unit and we certainly would support that as well. thank you. >> i just have a question on the second drawing that was put forward by mr. gladstone. is that something that your department sketched? is that a modern sort of -- sort of inconsistent with the standard that you have been -- articulating? look at the thing that he is putting on the overhead. is that -- >> no. tim frye department staff. i'm not -- again, i apologize. i am the 13th planner on this

project so i don't have all the history but if we were to provide options, it was only as a matter of guidance for the applicant in developing some options. the reconstruction standards are extremely flexible in terms of its interpretation of historic buildings that no longer exist and based on the applicants' objectives was for complete demolition so we were looking for something that mimicked the original roof, line and form of the existing structure. again, i think those are the primary elements that you can still see today and those are flebted in albeit a contemporary proposal but they are reflected here. >> thank you. >> how much did these exercises cost the zellmans? >> pardon me? >> referring to these drawings that were submitted with the e.i.r.?

>> an e.i.r. is an exercise. it is identified an impact and as pa part of that then an e.i.r. has to be completed. >> right. what did that cost the zellman's? i don't have that information in hand now. >> so all of those hours planning to come up with drawings that seems as though h.b.c. basically said whatever has been -- it almost as though they overturned the e.i.r. as well as the -- of approval? the certificate of approval? >> they do not have the authority to overturn the e.i.r. >> seems as though they did. i didn't say they did. the reason seems as though they did is because they didn't consider any of the proposals or make proposals of their own as to what would be acceptable alternatives. putting them in a position where were we to not overturn their -- >> that is correct.

they would have to propose a new design. the zell mans, that is. >> thank you. >> is the burden on the department to produce a drawing for an applicant? >> no, it is not. occasional we do provide design advice for a variety of projects that are contemporary or historic. that is a matter of courtesy to to kill tate the process -- facilitate the process. >> i was trying to raise the issue of what an expensive courtesy. >> mr. sanchez? mr. sanchez? did you have a comment to make about the e.i.r. process and the exercise that commissioner garcia was -- vice president garcia was asking about?

>> i think he will probably want to elaborate further. it is a process that the work is done by consultants that are hired by the project sponsor and alternatives were given. those are alternatives that were acceptable alternatives and it is not as if they cannot use the e.i.r. as guidance for a future project. it is very valuable to them. it is my understanding that they did not supply a project that complies with the alternatives in the e.i.r. and maybe mr. frye can elaborate further but i don't think it was a waste. >> thank you. the matter is submitted. >> i can start. the -- this issue before us

actually -- has several parts to it in terms of how we are going to approach our decision making. the first part deals with what the existing structure is like and it goes into a little bit of -- what -- historical resource. the existing building in the rear -- portions of it you can see with original fabric in terms of how original stuths were spaced quite far apart compared to modern day construction. you can see it in terms of some of the materials, portions of it

however are also clearly identified as things that have been added to the building. there are a number of things that make the rehab of this building quite difficult. the building has sagged. i don't see any feasible way of jacking the building up to be in alignment, as you can see major portions of the roof and the front facade has definitely sagged and leaned. however it occurred, there is no doubt that the -- significant structural portions of the building are gone. commissioner sugaya and i have

not always agreed. though we're pretty good friends. we have not always agreed but in this instance, i would agree with him. i think that the -- in terms of its integrity, based upon the -- secretary of interior standards, is not there. the second portion of it is that the only way one could demolish a landmark is by going through an e.i.r. and an e.i.r. was done. the question then is whether the alternatives or the analysis that was provided in the e.i.r. acts as a -- as a recipe then for what goes into it in the future. in terms of what that development should look like.

it is interesting because as i walk through the zellman's main building it is clear that their approach to the preservation of that existing building, the main building, is quite different than what architects would do. and i don't know their background, perhaps they are architects but compared to most architects, it is different. in the following way. architects have a tendency to develop designs that are -- the term that occurred to me as i was thinking about this case and visiting their site was similar to what was stated by one of the earlier speakers.

it is quite fanciful. you could see that in the interiors of their existing build and the design of what they proposed for the carriage house. the question then for us is whether the development of historically reflective themes comes from a cookbook for those of us who were trained as architects or whether it allows some level of creativity in the eyes of the beholder and the eyes of the creator. it is clear in my mind from the site that the zellmans have their own image and they have applied their own levels of creativity to how they preserve their existing building and it is quite clear that it is how they have applied it to the carriage house. i find that to be appropriate as a designer, i think that the

nature of what historical theme we want to reflect or we want to recall does not have to be the same as what was there before. it does not have to be the same genre of renovations that have occurred to a lot of victorians in our city. and what's most having the the term victorian fantasy. i have amassed quite a library of victorian books from all the cities that i have visited reflective of the houses of those cities and i have never heard victorian fantasy yet. but it has a certain application because i think the zellmans have provided some fanseful reflections in their recall of

the historical themes in their existing building. i would support them having the capability of creating something that they feel is appropriate. >> a question for you. i was leaning the other direction. and to hear you say that -- it was apparent to you that the original -- the original fabric was missing. i didn't see that. i saw a lot of original fabric there. and having seen evidence of what it might have looked like that was taken away and didn't see any, you know, signs of shad others, you know, themes or -- shadows or, you know, themes rst that would have given that away. >> would you like me to perhaps list some of those that i thought were -- >> yes. >> i think the large doors were not original. i think the shingles were not original.

>> on the roof? >> yes. obviously the windows. >> right. >> there was no aluminum back in those days. >> the window opening? >> hard to tell. i would say there is possibly a modification there to at least one or two of them >> they looked very old to me. >> you know the floor is all gone. >> the redwood floor was there. on the main floor. >> a lot of it was gone. the director almost fell as we were walking through it. >> there was a noel the front but other than that, i -- hole in the front but other than that, i saw it as in about the. >> there were portions that were still there. portion s of the exterior wall had been -- and placement in terms of so n terms of some of the studs. >> well, i don't know where i'm

going to land, but like said, i was leaning the other direction. and i was -- my view was that there was a high level of integrity of the building and certainly now versus the time as when it was designated a landmark. because that was -- that was in 1988. and i want to say that i think that the zellmans really are gems of people as one of the public comments was their integrity was spoken about and i'm not saying anything to suggest otherwise but or that i think otherwise but i did -- i did not view it as a shanty. i was actually moved by it. if it were cleeped up and you know, if it were fixed up to be safe and it were not sagging, i think it could look great. ansd even segment aside personal

and fed ex and victorian folly and interpretations and whatever, i think what is important is the process. we have a process here where we have a landmark building. we have a new h.p.c. and they have made a determination and they are the experts along with 11 preservation planners. that it did not meet a certificate of appropriateness standards. pending comments from my fellow commissioners, i'm inclined to support the commission. >> i'm similarly inclined to support the commission. for many of the same reasons. i think the h.p. scrmbings a

body that is endowed and charges with the responsibility of making these determinations. they have a, you know, an expertise that -- and standards that they applied and for those reasons i would be more inclined. i also think that the position of not producing possible other alternatives other than the one -- the project to h. -- planning. struck me as a pretty hard line in being very fixed with the design not having any kind of movement or ability to view another alternative. i quite like the bar and i don't know what that says about me but i think that -- like president goh, i thought the structure

maintained a lot of its integrity and that's what i'm thinking now. >> seems as though when we have dealt with issues having to do with preservation that passed, or that one would -- the board of supervisors, and i'm thinking of -- right now. it seems as though theme to her comments when she makes comments about whether or not something should be preserved or has been, you know, the word integrity has been used over and over and been used dinnerly here to describe the zellmans and they are -- to describe the process that -- the process with integrity. it has been used to describe the building in question. and i don't want to -- describe this as having a high degree of

integrity seems to me to be a little bit hyperbolic. you know, just given one fact of how many materials are missing. how the fact that at various times various people in planning, experts and otherwise have been confused as to what the original function of this building was. it has been called a carriage house. it has been called a barn and later -- the horses were actually stabled across the street. there is certainly confusion about that. it is not as though everyone is in perfect agreement as to what is there and what it looked like. sometimes we though what it looked like because we have poirs renderings or drawings. so someone has got to guess at what it was and tricom up with something that will recall that.

they will recall that to the person behind the particular building. i guess someone -- it had been a barn. so one of the renderings is draw a barn. beyond. don't regret not understanding the alternative. that's mysterious to me. but it seems as though what has happened is someone has said we don't know what was there. you have alternatives. someone to do absolutely nothing. nobody wants it. refurbish what is there and have it be as close to what it was but bear in mind we don't know what it was. we don't know what it would have looked like. we don't know what the materials were. we're going to guess. and that seems to be the