brother has them and yes, there is probably a situation where the cost of storing them out weigh the value of the brick if you took it just as the value of the brick and not the historic value. >> i am not questioning that at all. >> these are whole numbers that could be resolved. >> they have been stored for so many years and so much cost involved and i am sure that he is not looking to get every penny out of it that he paid to get these out of the auction and preserve them and, they were not sold to a contract and her now they are sitting in a house. >> we heard a different story at the arc is that they were actually trying to get the owner to pay a much higher cost than the storage fee, so now this is another twist. >> the owner being the brother of nancy, was trying to help with the foreclosure aspect of

it. because she borrowed this money and the bankruptcy court left the question open as to whether a forclosing entity is entitled to the bricks, do the bricks run with the property or once they have been removed and taken off the site are they no longer part of the property? >> yes that is a legal question, the moral answer is, they are from the building, and they are part of the building. just because they are not attached to the building at that moment does not mean that they are part of the building. >> yeah, and the costs associated with that, you know, nancy is practically destitute. >> and thes willing to be discounted. >> my understanding is that for the $15,000 or whatever the number is, that money could be raised or the owner might put

up the money, but you again, it is the mystery of you seem to know where they are and no one else does. >> right. >> and you know it seems like we could get to a resolution if you would work directly with the owners. >> and i didn't know about any of this. >> tell us your name? >> my name is ray tong and i am the project manager and i am the one that was at the arc meeting and i spoke about the brick and in which i have to go back to about over a year ago in which i spoke with the bankruptcy trustee. who was the one claiming ownership of the bricks because they said that the bricks were removed from the building somehow before it went into foreclosure. and so, that she then had the right to the ownership of the bricks, i called mr. freta at that time and he is on my cell phone here and you may not remember, and i am not a real

attractive guy so the thing is i talked to him, and what happened was i asked him if he could talk to nancy for us to help us resolve this matter, because i was rauning into a lot of difficult with andria who was a bankruptcy trustee. >> if i tried to do anything with the bricks i would face a legal auction >> she said that the offer was ridiculously low. i made her a market value offer for the bricks which i thought rightfully actually belonged to us. and she said that you will face the legal action and all of this was documented and sent to the city attorney jill cannon as well. she told me, not only do you have to pay as much more 230 the bricks and then you also have to pay for the storage fee and any other legal fees to clarify the ownership of the bricks. that is only half of the bricks, half of the brickeds

were removed from the site by her brother. >> half are gone and the other half are claimed and maybe she did not know that half of them were removed. but the other half were being claimed by andrie, and so we were really between a rock and a hard place, you know we can't get all of the bricks, if we get any of the bricks we will be sued and this thing could be tied up in court for several year as well. we were between a rock and a hard place and so i told the architect what is a viable solution that we could work with to get this project going, i do get calls from the neighbors saying what is the status and i made representations to them, and i unfortunately could not live up to my work and simply because of the issues of the bricks. and i keep them posted as to where we are and what it really comes down to is in the end they would like to see something done and they were amenable to working in one collection and except we don't

want to get tied up in court for three years, you know, it is simply if we get the directions, we are happy to try to comply. >> >> we are no long ner bankruptcy. >> okay. >> no, no, thank you. >> that was... i really appreciate that. >> thank you. >> thank you. for your time on coming in. commissioner wolfram? >> i think that we should acknowledge that the bricks are gone and approve the project the way that it is. >> i am sorry, i mean the bricks are not on the site, the secretary standard says that if the material is gone you can find replacement material. this is... we could be spending years looking for bricks. >> if that is a motion? >> i make a motion. >> i second it. >> any other discussion? >> so commissioners that motion is to approve with conditions? >> as in the draft motion?

>> in the draft motion. >> as poe proesed by staff? >> yes, could i sign up for that because of all of the corrections. >> we have the corrections related to it. >> thank you for that. >> i agree to that modification. so just for clarity, commissioners that motion is to approve with conditions as proposed by staff and corrected and red into the record, yes. >> on that motion, commissioner hylan? >> yes. >> johns. >> yes. >> johnck. >> yes. >> matsuda. >> no. >> pearlman? >> this is a hard one, i am going to say no. >> wolfram? >> yes. >> president hasz. >> so moved, commissioners that motion passes five to two, with commissioners matsuda and pearlman voting against. >> that will place us on item

eight. 2013.0317a (lily yegazu: 415-575-9076) 901 battery street northwest corner of battery street and vallejo street. assessor's block 0135, lot 003 request for a certificate of appropriateness >> i make a motion to recuse mr. hylan? >> second. >> on the motion to recuse commissioner hylan? >> hylan. >> yes. >> commissioner johns >> yes. >> johnck. >> yes. >> matsuda. >> yes. >> pearlman? >> yes. >> wolfram. >> yes. >> and hasz. >> yes. >> you are recused. >> good afternoon again, planning department staff. the project before you currently is a request for a certificate of appropriateness

for a property located at 901 battery street. and commonly known as the petri cigar building, it is a four story reinforced building that was constructed in 1923, the subject property is identified as a con tributing structure within the north east landmark district. the proposed project involves the addition of the ex-per or and interior and i guess that is great for the building and the restoration and including the replacement of the architectal features and the addition of the canopy. specifically the scope includes the interior of the building along the battery and the facades and the installation of a new wall on the exterior wall surface along the rear alley.

>> the main entrance along the battery street will be reconstructed based on physical and photo graphic evidence, utilizing the glass, fiber concrete or material. additional alterations are proposed on the facades that includes the addition of the entry, and act together on the north side of the entry door and painted the work above the entry door immediately north of the entry and the new walleds sconces replacing the non-historic front door system and a new storefront of similar configuration and replacing the doors in the bay and immediately north of the central bay with new doors of similar configuration. and new frameless glass canopy with stainless steel support over the main entrance and a

new interpretive pack and the tenant signed in the bay to the south of the main entry. and the relocation of the existing dates to adjacent and replacing the grill with a new decorative grill with the bi fold and panel. >> gentleman, i am sorry, with a secondary conversation, could you please go outside? >> existing secondary entrance. and the proposal includes replacing the non-historic storefront with the new system within the existing opening and providing ada signage along the street facade, and a new 6-foot high glass wind screen enclosing 325 square feet area around the elevator and stair penthouses is proposed on the roof. and the screen will be set back 15 feet from the nearest edge of the building which is the battery street facade. based on the review of the

propose td drawings and, the proposed project appears to meet these secretary standards and the traditional apex d, for the following reasons that is respects the defining features of the building and the north east water front historic landmark district. and that the proposed work will not result in the removal of any history being fabric and that the foreman and the building in the district will be unimpaired if the proposed district were proposed in the future. and it was restorative in nature in part and based on this finding, and the department recommends approval of the project with the conditions approval of the specified and the case report in the motion and includer but not limited to the following. revised drawings should be included as part of the

submitting indicating that all stainless steel material including the canopy supports and grills and, shall be painted to match the existing window flames on the building. provide the storing shall be included as part of the building permit including that any attachments to the building including the signs and canopy will be done in a manner that minimizing the damage to the historic fabric and after issuance of the building permit, and prior to the production of the features and the approval of the architectural addendum, the staff shall review the site markups of the materials and as well as changes to the proposed sign program with the north east water front interest including the material, lighting if any, and attachment details be submitted for review

in a by the department under a new administrative certificate of appropriateness at a later date and with that, icon include my staff report. and available for any questions you may have. >> questions of staff? >> none. >> public comment? >> project sponsor? >> >> i am a senior vice president with the company with oversight of the northern california port foilo and was founded in 1936 and we have many historic buildings in the portfolio and so we pride ourselves on being

good stewards of the historic buildings and keeping them well vant for today's tenants. and the 901, battery street building we purchased at the end of last year, with the intent to perform both infrastructure and aesthetic improvements including a significant voluntary seismic upgrade. we engaged arg because of their extensive experience and expertise with sensitivity to the historic buildings, and to advise us and to design the facade improvements that we wish to make on the building. so with that i would like to turn this over to matthew davis with the art. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is matthew davis and the preserve vasing and planner with arg and i prepared the supplemental information that you put in your packet and we completed the memo and the project that was just left to

the standards and i would like to introduce myself and you know that i along with my colleague here in case you have any questions, regarding the building or the project, if it is a simple project. and the replacement of the entries along the battery streets and the voluntary reinforcement of the building. we have two comments regarding the conditions of the approval that either described in the staff report, and so condition number one states that all stainless steel material proposed at the new entrance should be painted to match the existing windows and condition number five states that all storefront systems should be painted and we feel that instead, we knew that leaving them unpainted would better differentiate the new elements from the historic building and that is more strictly in keeping with the standards. and finally, regarding sufficient number seven, i

would like to confirm that the client is indeed planning to prepare the signage package and just as a bit of preview, know that we do some historic evidence that indicates that they have the feature of signage in the past and so the blanket prohiks may not be in keeping with the historic character of the building but we will do more digging on that. thank you. >> anything else from the sponsor? >> no? >> thank you. any other questions from commissioner? none. okay, public comment? >> on this item? >> really entrance for about the 901 area, but this is for the historical reverence, could

we stick to the subject property. >> about the property itself, essentially, i don't know the actual location, but i was really kind of wanting to make sure and i didn't know if this was the last comment i will make it short and simple. i was interested for entering properly at an appropriate time about historic preservation because i have two entities that i would like to appoint. >> maybe it will be better reserved for general public comment. >> we are discussing 901 battery street at this time. >> i understand that. are they going to have another calendar and on? >> yes. >> excuse me, no. i take that back. >> we have already had general public comment? >> really? for the historical preserve vasing. >> we meet in two weeks. >> the 21st. >> okay. good. i will come then. >> and right at the beginning of the meeting. i want to make sure that i have a schedule appointment where i can just have my time to speak what i want.

>> during general public comment. >> thank you very much. >> anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i am representing the ownership of 1050 stanford street which is on the other side of this property and we own the alley way that is in the rear of 901 battery street and i want to apologize that the notice of this hearing was the first time that i heard of a project going on 901 battery, and i would like to request the final approval of the certificate of the appropriateness. and that i have the opportunity to talk to the sponsors, on whether their additional six-inch wall on the require alley encroaches on my property or not and that is my request. and if i might actually i believe that is handling in planning department. i mean that you will find that if the staff could comment on that?

>> that is from the department staff. and that would be handled at the department of building inspection and the department of public works and the bureau of mats and plats. and once the permit is formally submitted, then, that would be your opportunity to work with the property owner. and when, after the permits? >> well, when the permit is under review, by the city. this is just to improve the entitlement that goes along with that permit. >> okay. >> you may want to speak to the representatives of the families. >> okay, i will take that opportunity, thank you. >> and just to clarify, the site plan that we have shows the property running several feet through the west of the new concrete wall and so it appears that this is on their property and i imagine that it will be on the property. >> i don't know how they can do anything other than that. >> would i like the clarification on that and because the documents that we reviewed and there is an

appropriate alley way behind the building and our property extends. >> and we understand. >> thank you. >> okay. >> and any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> seeing none we will bring it back to the commission. >> yeah, do you have a comment? >> commissioners tim fry, comment, just to reemp t any comment that you may have on 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 existi