and the penthouses that are already two penthouses on the roof. so i am not sure that if this is a third pept house being discussed but i would like to see some consideration of minimizing additional structures on the roof and the impact of a further height will have on the blue sky effect which is extremely minimal already. and just wanted to do a few months a year really. >> that said, again, we are encouraging the project, we just want the roof height and impact on blue sky to be considered. >> any other member of the public? >> seeing none we will close public comment. >> back to the commission, commissioner johnck? >> yes, thank you. >> i am interested in getting a little further understanding about the original brick and wondered if the members of the architecture review committee would it be andrew? yeah, that, and maybe karl, and

you previously looked at this, and your recommendation on the stucco was that because the original brick that the location of the original brick was a question. and it was not to be found and so, the next best historic representation would be through stucco, i guess that is the question. or, does this new information about the possibility location of the original brick would this make me difference in your original consideration about the use of the historic material? >> at that hearing we were told that the original brick was not available and we felt that the stucco was a better choice than the brick which seemed kind of not an appropriate material in terms that it was just a thick brick and that it was and there seemed to be evidence of those and since i had originally been stucco and so that was our

recommendation and so so the brick situation is a new information that we didn't have at that time. if the brick is available or not. >> commissioner pearlman? >> yeah, i mean, part of the department had worked with the project sponsor about putting veneer on it and there is the sense that it looks very fake, you know, even a good one looks very thin and the detailing. you know f, even salvaged brick would be better than veneer but that we actually, mr. norton said in the hearing, ining would be better than the veneer and we kind of had more discussion about it and i think that is part of you know that discussion. >> okay. just so in response to that too. i mean, does it make and this is of course, part of our discussion, does the fact that there may be a position location and mr. buellr said that he might and could be

helpful perhaps, and in bringing this to light or something like that. would that be important to reconsider the original recommendation? i guess that is what i ... >> commissioner johns? >> i nout that everything based on what came before us that using the stucco would be an appropriate response to solving this problem, of course it is quite interesting that now at the really the last minute here, we are told on the one hand that there is some brick available. and then another gentleman informed us that he knows where all of the brick is and i have no doubt, that... and let me phrase it this way. there are a couple of things that occurred to me.

we don't know what the brick was available and if the condition on the brick is available actually is. the papers that were given made it pretty clear that the building originally had two kinds of brick, we don't know why the brick was covered with the stucco in the first place. it may be that the brick was ugly and that this was an appropriate 19th century response to dealing with the back of a commercial building. >> all of the papers that we received, there was a suggestion that the brick had a

value which was nowhere near the amount of the storage costs and that the people who had the brick wanted their storage costs. that leads me to observe that this is one of fascinating situations where there is enough brick and assuming that the brick is attractive. then we must consider the cost involved. >> because in all of these projects costs is extremely important. and we may be in that position where the perfect is the worst enemy of the good. but, at this point, we don't

know whether the brick would be suitable to be replaced. because we don't know that, and because this was apparently originally covered with stucco before melvin took it off in 1958. i am inclined to support the use of stucco so that after very nearly a quarter of the century, this eye sore can be solved. >> thank you, commissioner pearlman? >> i felt like with the first speaker, the first comment and i am wondering if you could come up here for a second. i felt like we were in a murder mystery because we revealed that we knew the location and would not reveal what that was and said you know if the project sponsor was interested and they could contact me and here is my card. well the project sponsor is sitting right there and

perhaps, we could you could reveal to us how you know this information, and that it is verifiable and that if the brick does actually exist, and i think that i agree with stewart morgan and mike if the brick actually does exist, we should and in response to commissioner johns. we should gave it some time and say let's find the brick and verify that it is the brick and then test the brick and say that this has to be done by a certain period of time because otherwise this is just an endless thing and i feel horrible for the people that they have lived with this for a quarter of the century and i moved here in 89 and you know, weeks before the earthquake and you know and i used to work down in that area, and you know, it is like someone else said half of my life.

i am wondering if you could reveal a little bit more? >> i was not talking about the crate of bricks that i believe, mr. morton was talking about. i was talking about the 228 slabs, all of the bricks. and the iron work. nancy had a company called glow metro and that was a company that was going to restore the building, and she was required to number each brick because this building you are in a better position to know that it was the first home of physical therapy ... of the free masons and so she had to test each one and number them so that they would be put back in the same spot and i am not sure all of the bricks were reusable.

but enough of them to create. and they were stored in south san francisco and ultimately the cost of removing, testing, documenting, these bricks is what made her unable to complete the project. her brother bought those bricks at auction and her brother has been storing them ever since, east west bank when they initiated four closure procedures against the company, glow metro, she was unable to say where she was or elderly and could not make it today. and she is under medication and there was many, many hearings that i was present with her, where you know, because of medication she would try to give her best recollection. from that we know that the 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