on this prioritized list i would look to spur and the committee if i folks can submit the same what do you think are the tops. any other comments? terrific seeing none, we'll 0 close thatback. >> san francisco prestige commission is back in sessions you left off on the 940 grove street a request for a plan. >> before i begin my premise i have 3 letters of support that i have received from the public and i'll let the commission secretary pass those up to you.

all right. i'm being told there's a signed petition from the square neighborhood association which is being passed up. ? a certify to approve the rehabilitation projects that was originally approved in 2011. the project site is on the corner - the existing lot is part of an existing lot that was subdivided in 2011. this corner lot contains the historic building that occupied the entire lot. it did allow the construction of 3 new buildings that was once the rear yard of the historic building. those buildings have not been

constructed but the demolition has begun on that lot. the work enhance on the site under approval. some of the design modifications that are approved h have been completed without prior approval from the planning department. so this is to legal lists those parts of the project that are completed and to prop further improvements. in the for modification of opposing at the north and east facade as well as wholesale replacement throughout united states building of orientation at the north and east facade and installation of the garage. i described the details in my case report so i'm not going to into the facade details on the

pressing presentation. so i'm going to focus on the parts that staff is recommending change for. i'm going to begun with the garage and the elevation would contain the modifications that staff is recommending for conditions of approval. so in the original proposing proposal the garage was proposed at the basement level of the facade that has the driveway. the modification that's proposed

would put the garage at the sub basement level toward the property line to create american people opening within the historic remaining wall would be 11 feet wide and the door would be 8 feet from the property line which would be in line with the secondary retaining wall. in general, i you think this approach is a better option than the original proposal. that will allow for retention of more of the landscaping and retain more of the fence that the building hearsay historically been set within. so but staff thinks the design could be improved so we have a couple conditions. first to have the new work from

the old the staff is recommending that the proposed remaining walls should be differently. so the historic remaining e retaining wall that flank the garage door should have a smooth finish not to persevere they're part of the original design and to obser the character where even the partner and finish shall be matched. the renovation can be repairs there required so we want to make sure those are done if keeping with the style and a character of the original retaining wall. similarly staff is recommending that the heights of the

retaining walls are maintained in their current condition but the secondary retaining wall will be raised approximately 18 inches to serve as a base for the safety railing and staff is recommending that increased heights is not included in the project the railing is simply installed that. the last conditions in order to minimize this visual obstruction with the facade we're recommending the rail be lighter in appearances while the pickiest style for the roof-decks where security is more of a concern. if the front door we want to see the rails with more transparency. i'm sorry there's one more condition. also in order to down play the

entrance it should about solid wood and have a better finish. those are the the reviews of the garage. i want to a little bit about theed of the east and north facade. so in your paublths in your drawings you do have a sheet that compares both the existing conditions the approved conditions from 2011 and the current proposed conditions that

sheet is a little bit unwe'd likely but you've had a chance to look at that. i'm going to talk about the east facade the staff is recommending the north and east facade. this is part of the work that's been completed. the north and east facade historically has been compromised by additions that were constructed throughout the middle of the century around 1950 for the school that occupied the site for 50 years were when the schools additions were removed it left quite a few areas that required in file on the north facade so the project sponsor choose to remove all the historic citing and the citing from the additions and hoped the

new horizontal woodsideing would be better. staff is recommending there was enough detail on the north facade of the original detailing including the string detail there was enough information we could have completed the restoration of the north facade so we're recommending that approach be for the north facade that the horizontal siding be removed that matches the original detailing. similarly an approach was taken for the east facade. those are additions to the - i'm sorry a good portion of the wall was an original wall. it's been reclad and the detail

has been removed at the level and there's additional detail that was removed from the lower edition. staff recommends those facades go back to the prior condition prior to the project having sorry going back to the preproject status so that the original east facade is roared with all it's original details and the school additions go back to their original design. so i'm sorry if it's a bit complicated i know to have to compare the existing conditions prior to 2011 is a bit

mind-boggling but i'm happy to discuss many of those and the project sponsor is now here to present the rest of the project >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm lou. i rupert project sponsors and owners pat hanson and quincy smith. it's h a n t s. we're before you because the new owners are enthusiastic about the property they bought it with

a conditional use and want to adjust it to their own needs so they made some improvements to the interior to the historic facades. they also bought the building with a ton of building depth violations which people don't often realize but going back to 2001 they were let me just find them for you i want to read it for you. i have a lot of files which document each facade so i'll be going through that with you. let's so here we go. i want to read a violation from 2001 that's 2012 years were the building is in disrepair the roof is falling off and they use

a water hospital to drain inside the building. this is the packet of the various violation notices that from 2001 to 2012. there was a lot of pressure on the new owners to start doing something about this. also the subdivision of the property required that the portion of the building that of addressed to the north side be demolished because the subdivision law and department didn't allow the buildings to be overlapping over the property line and it was 6 feet off the existing north wall of 940 grove. and i'll to start with the north property line that's the most controversial aspect of this project and it's the only major

recommendation we agree with. staff is recommending you know that north facade be roared so i'd like to run you throw a quick history of this project and it's lay out. if i could have the overhead. commissioners this the the 940 building the gray is the existing roofline you can see the allegations to the roof were done quite sometime ago and as the lady indicated there were additions done if the 50s basically this home turned into a school starting in 1956 there were subject additions made over time this is a one and two and 3 story wing over the basement. there were can believe additions made over time.

in 2011 when you approved the certify of appropriationness for this project it became a housing project this again indicates the 940 grove street building the historic building those are the east additions and those are 3 townhomes that were approved on the site. to give you a visual in terms of what it looked like prior the play yard and this the tower and the one and 2 and 3 story element there's another one story element when evolved from al los most square i can see the one story school wing and it's almost two stories at the northern end. i can see the two-story addition

and those additions to the roof. so very little of the historic material was actually visual over time. when all this was removed excuse me. this is what's left and what's kind of in the at an excuse me. shows where the outline was basically an non-historic portion of the building and if you can see this is where the roof was attached and where there's penetrations done you have pen tracing for the stairwell access and all those penetrations compromise this wall it came like swiss cheese and the building department was concerned about making sure this

was structurally reinforced and reconstituted and also made weather tight. to achieve that goal owners basically recognizing that the north facade would not be seep and if you look at the luxury there's had a line here this is where the new buildings are approved and it would block the remainder of that north facade. so what was done was the north facade elevation was finished in a high quality way but with rustic sidings the corners were maintained and the - including this. this is obvious the west facing bay that's been all restored.

in terms of transition that was beautifully done in my opinion taking the facade and ending it with the tlail and then you have the kind of plain rust indication along the north facade. now there's a one hundred-year-old precedent which is the neighborhoods down here. this is 6, 12 signer it's the building it's basically right now existing north of the facade in this area. you can see the victorian facade is on a primary part of the building and the side party wall facade is done in plain rusk indication. this is what people did 1 hundred years ago. you didn't want to spend time,

energy and money decorating a facade that wouldn't be seen. it's a finished totality and the actions in terms of allowing for the subdivision basically obtain secures that facade and destroys it's historic integrity. here's the elevation and the north facade and how the new building would obscure that whole elevation. this is one remedies we take issue with with respect to what the staff recommended. we'd like this commission to do is make a finding and i'd like to pass out a draft finding for you and condition since i have one minute and a 33 seconds he left and basically find that the

changes that were made allowing the new buildings to be built to the north of this building essential up against it the finding would be make the alternative to the may 17, 8945, to 1975. those additions obscured itself facade so the historic detail can remain visual. the approval of new construction of the new 4 story building has allocated party waiting wall status to the north facade. we think that's an appropriate findings and with respect to condition regarding the north facade united states north facing bay and a impediment should be preserved.

it can get 90 many windows and doors consistent with the common facades. there shall be no appropriate acquisition between the corners and side plaintiff's. similarly we don't take issue with itself north facade i have more material to show you but again this is the krukts. thank you for your time >> thank you, commissioners questions for staff or the sponsor? commissioner pearlman. >> shelly i had a question. thank you there was the conversation been about the 18 inch curtain on the or on the

secondary facade what was the purpose of that? why was something added and then related to that the staff is suggesting that the railing there should be different from the railings that's different on the other levels? >> i'll start with the second part wire recommending that the railing above the wall be lighter. they'll be used in different context and we think the handrail in the front yard should be historic. and it didn't >> the clerk will read the journal from the previous day add to the retaining wall. the proposal is to now getting to the first part of our question. the architect or the project sponsor has chosen to add the 18

inch curb to the topic of the retaining wall. i'm not sure we hadn't discussed other than to create more privacy around that level i'm not sure you might ask the architect. to meet the 42 manipulative railing requirement >> thank you, commissioner. >> i have a followup question about the same topic which was two followed. one was there no ever a railing it seems odd to have a railing with a wall >> either at the retaining wall the school had some paths that

crossed cross the front yard and they had simple two rails but were not related to the retaining walls. one thing i've noticed in the project you've got the curb and fence it seemed a historic how is it wouldn't have been a 42 inch dimension it would have been a shorter fence. i think making the fence simpler would be fine >> commissioner highland. >> i concur with both those comments. i have a couple of questions. so it appears this work was done outside of the appropriate approvals and my question is: is there a reason why the work

preceded prior to the approvals? >> i can tell you how it was poland explained to me but perhaps we'll be able to better answer that the project was under construction they have a desire to get it weather typed before the rainy season and didn't think they'd be able to get through the process but my colleague can add it that. >> one they had the certify of appropriateness they assumed the windows were included we found out no. you needed a certify of appropriateness to replace windows we filed that on june lifting to go through a 20 day process but it didn't happen and

ultimate it was folded into this garage and north evasion changed the process that required a full certification of appropriateness. the building was vandalized. we've been lucky with one rain in the season. >> so on the windows the staff recommendations is that the windows are okay. can someone provide me more information on the windows that's been installed. there's not a clear photo of the windows and i notice it has a no guard; is that correct a no guard window.

so how did - how were the million dollars of the frames of the windows matched if it's a manufactured window how do we know they're actually the same size >> unfortunately, the only way is to look at the historic photos for the original windows so i asked the project spokesperson to bring by historic windows and as many of the photos in the existing conditions as soon as possible. we added the condition of approval hopefully, you'll include in our motion that staff will do a site visit to it insure that the scope of work has been followed through appropriately but the project

sponsor has assured us that they match the condition formulation of the double sash windows as closely as possible but i have not been on the site to confirm that myself. it's been on a construction site that i haven't had access to >> so the windows may not be the exact windows but it seeldz the historic ones were much more delicate. i don't know if those are the exact same windows. i would - staff has made the statement they're the same and i'm questioning whether it's true or not. and then two other items. highway close will the new

building on the north side be away from this building. there's no plan showing either >> right the new building will be 6 feet from the plain of the north facade. so there's a credible set back between the buildings and that's part of the reason staff is recommending it be restored to its original condition. especially within the park itself but you'll have to use the back facade by the portions of the east facade that remaining retain from the center are 1rish8 from the street >> one last question. on the bay window above the garage in the plan it appears both the existing basement plan and the proposed new plan

there's a bay at that level but the elevations don't articulate that very well and they certainly don't come down to the bay so the retaining wall >> it's a projecting bay. but i'm sorry, i had missed that in the daily in the plans i'll take a look at it >> it seems like the plan isn't correct. it says see but it doesn't show up on the building. so how it finishes if it's a projected bay it's important but it it rests on the walkway so i don't know which it is. it's a general comment