don't have enough information. i know there's a lot of work put into this but we've spent a lot of time reviewing this this weekend and there's not enough information to review this >> well, i think the council is starting to put something up. this is really different >> so i'm showing you the condition of how it's resolved. if they restored the front portion there's a stair window - sorry located here. i think i don't recall this is a rankle 0 window or not but the original detailing had been preserved in this area so that might be a local area to

recommend restoration of the windows and to restore the portions of the facade that had been damaged by the school additions >> potential can you go back to that the evasion you just had. yeah, that one. another place would be where the door above or actually more to the right actually that could be in one of the places >> the window or the door. >> just a comment for the good of the public we've deliberated on this and this is precedent setting beyond even work without a permit this is work not approved to cabin with are. i want to get you to understand

your compromise here today is a really good deal for the owner if we move this forward. this is precedent they're doing wonderful unthinkable but those things we wouldn't have approved in the beginning >> yeah, they come to the ar c before they come here. >> shelly put this up for john then sake. i'm trying to find an appropriate location. see that's not the same elevation. this stringcourse has not been

recreated. >> the windows don't line up either. >> well. do we have an approval to say there's at least some dimension we're going to condition >> so your roofline don't work. >> it's on on top of the window. >> let's look at the constitutional picture, you know. >> to go up to the. >> let's see if it was installed that way. >> we're going to go up to the window which is almost loin with the door. >> i have a built picture here. >> in fact, wait a minute do

they pull that up. >> as you can see in the built condition it didn't match the proposed condition in your packet. i'm sorry about that >> expect for that the too below the main door. >> the one that didn't get installed. >> it was a stair window it was during the schools occupation of the building and so i guess i'm a little bit more confused. we have a package that's a revision of what was approved but what was built didn't match what we're approving today. ii don't think we can approve that. maybe they could look at the package. this is one of the worst package i know that the buyer spent a

lot of you money to include the architect drawing and so let's get more details on the fence >> and the windows. >> so do i have a motion to continue. >> i'll make a motion to continue more information. >> and let's pick a date. >> second. >> and sponsor? >> commissioners your advances calendar is fairly open exception he november 6th. >> so ask the sponsor when we want to come back. >> december 4th, december 18th. >> what's november? >> the 20th. no november 6th is quite full >> november 20th would be fine we'd like it sooner but -

>> yeah. okay >> again doyle we'll like to work on the garage with the "x" escalation. i know it's been characterized its some of the things haven't gone through planning again, we applied on june 4th for the administrative c of a. i want you know we've done everything by the books and it's been 4 months sins we applied you have your job >> and everybody else in the city has the same deal. >> we've done through the c of a and things aren't matching up. >> unfortunately, if we let

this go; right? then who approved to do whatever they want. so we're going to hear this what's the date >> november 20th. >> do we have a motion and second on the floor to move this to november 20th. >> on that motion to continue it to november 20th? so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 67 to zero. >> shall we move on commissioners and a commissioners that will place you on 10 for 302 greenwood street also known as as montgomery street request for certificate of appropriateness. i've been corrected many times

in and out the greenwich (laughter) >> good afternoon the project before you is for a request for a certificate. city landmark jew lose castle. it expand in 1928 is a two-story gothic arts and crafts style building such as a painted wood shingle senile. as you know the committee approved it's certificate of appropriateness which was to address the work cited with work without the benefit of permit. this previous c a has expired.

today, we're here to present a new c of a and some additional improvements. it's important to note that the violation was caused by previous owner we have a new owner who is going to correct those violations. the proposed project in summary in the interest of time is to address it without the permit and with the restoration of the new windows indoors at the rear of the property restoration of the fence and replacement of the non-historic doors and third and third floor desk. there w will be working to the exterior stairwell. so based on the proposed drawing

and site visits by the staff and the project sponsor we believe that the project does meet the secretary exterior standards, however, the staff is asking for some standards that are outlined in the report and the justification but for the public i'll run through some of the conditions of approval and if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them after my preparation presentation all work must be complete as part of the approval including the expansion of the house elevation of the main believe to roar restore the major roofline. second if it's determined that more than 50 percent of the exterior shingles listed in the scope of work is required than a full continuing condition

assessment shall be for review and approval at a regularly scheduled hearing. this is for the dulling gesture building we were unaware of the condition of the site. the third condition is the brick surface of the stairwell will retain unfinished to preserve the character of the property. and prior to the addendum the mentioned elevation sections where all profiles and all new proposals will be submitted to planning department for preservation staff and approval. also with the addendum we are asking for dimension evaluation for specific locations where the conditions assessment will be subject to review and approval by planning staff.

included in the addendum any wood or brick cleaning are droiksdz will be include in the amendment. sorry 3 other conditions one is a paint colors conducted by professional will be submitted to the planning department for review and approval and prior to issuance of the addendum samples of any new materials such as the third desk tiles and blaring and for the fish for the windows and doors me any hard will be forwarded to the preservation and staff for our review. and finally, there's prior to issuance we're requesting that

certain maurpz can be done all at once but in particular those include the repair of the wood shingles and the new redwood fence. there were 4 letters of support one is in your package. we've received no other public comments at this time. other than that i have no further comments the project sponsor is here and will give you a short presentation and would like to discuss some of the questions and so meet the intent of those conditions. >> thank you.

commissioners i'm paul scott. i live in the neighborhood of julius castle and have for longer than i care to remember 15 years or so. i just wanted to speak to a couple of items. in terms of my involvement with this building i care about my building i'm the former president of t hd and was the president of save our neighborhoods where we have the america's cup facilities today. i'm a lawyer will i profession but i've done property work on the filner's steps - i'm not sure how to operate this. that's not the after but the before picture.

and we did some work on that place which isn't coming across well. we restored that building to the pen of the neighborhood and also to the satisfaction of the folks who were concerned in a historically done fashion. we're coming from the prospective of trying to do the right thing. we want to restore to the historic use. when i bought the people i was told about their prom night or first job interview and the vast vast number of people wanted it to be returned to that use. the real estate folks were sacrificing it's not a brilliant plan but fortunately it's subject to the exterior standards. it looks like, you know, we're

on the same page jefferson with the staff with respect to the envelope and the replacement of doors and windows and trying to beautify this building. we have still a couple of issues we'd like to have our thoughts on and get going forward with what you folks think is best. first of all, with respect to the brick wall on the front of the stairs at the front of building that's on page 17 of the proposal packet the sponsored packet. i'll put that on the gene if i can. on the screen if i can. that is the current condition.

you can see the bring on the left on the bottom of the stairs and the stuck odd wall. if you look at how this building look before it was all stuck owed there before and the owner wanted the brick there on the stairwell. in my view that's not consisted with want history of this building and throughout the history of the building you have imagines in our packet it was always a stuck owed wall it didn't have a justification. we would like to correct that condition and return that to a

stucco finish. a second concern of ours relates to the fence. ms. price said we could mention to you a possible solution with respect to the fence that's on page 16. so this is the the fence as it exists now. this is the wall that's added the misconduct owed wall that was added by the prior owner that is what it looks like from the outside. this is the retaining dirt from the hill on the greenish steps. this is how it appears on the inside of that wall it's integrated with the surface of

the patio and also with the wall retaining the hill from the west side. what we've been asked to do is essential tear down that wall and curve that will come down the slope and build a wood fence on top of curve. we were proposed to put a wood facing along the existing that all u wall to allow it to be a sprakt wall and to function as a retaining wall on the dirt and i think that was a dissatisfactory condition. we will perhaps thanking take this wall again and drive 3 this

wall back slightly they were create a double gate and my architect is here that has an luxury if we have this line so here's the proposal which will go along with if the commission elections to vote that manner but the other alternative would be to put a double gate and a drive that is he time wall it will still be an integrated space that will transaction from that wall instead of having a fence we're doing it for aesthetic reasons and trying to

reminded we're on the hill. one other issue is with respect to the conditions of approval there are references to there for a architecture addendum and i understand those were typically used on a scale when maybe i'm misunderstanding terminology but itself concern we have with respect to the conditions of approval they're very broad and vague and not as specific as we've seen on the projects that were before you. we're happy to do those with some discussion lou but there's a lack of clarity to the conditions. i'd like to ask that those be 4r507kd. we have another alternative, you know, draft of the conditions of the approval for you to consider

but perhaps looking at them you could determine which items are significant to add as a condition. we're trying to do that with some sense of the financial consequences because ultimately that goes into that's money that could be spent on others items. though i understand the importance of it. we've been doing it we underlined filed this application more than a year ago and we'd like to move the process forward. reference to a painting analysis. we have as you've seen in one of the images here actually on the cover of our sponsor packet that's an illness that was on

the cover of the san francisco book that note has a variety of more beautiful landmarks in san francisco was included in that. the person who did the colors for that building has colors. he's here. we don't think we need to have a scientist come in and scratch the paint we're simply president to reconstitute the colors that were there. the only comment i would make is with respect to the continual use language i want to be assured that that's not something that is the finding this commission will be making.

so thank you for your time >> thank you, commissioners any questions or staff or sponsor and a commissioners. >> i'm just going to get the clarification of the stucco and brick wall. right now it's brick and i want to option of doing either? >> we put the two options in the plans a product you have our conversations with staff but your preference is to return it to misconduct 0. other than when this other gentleman 5 years ago put brick there >> does planning have an opinion. >> on the overhead there are historic photos.

this is a historic photo from 57 while there's been modifications over time this brick wall has been this partial stair where the brick has been exposed sometime. it certainly was restored of a nature and we felt this material should be left exposed but mr. scott is correct the finish of that area has changed back and forth over time by we felt brick would be more appropriate as a finish >> thank you. >> yes. i'm interested in a long-term life of this landmark so i'm glad you're doing this project. >> what's related to this is the

geologic stability of the building in relationship to the setting of the context. so number one i'm interested in the condition assessment maybe that's the planning commission whether it includes you're the engineering that has to be done or what is the condition of the building in relationship to stability and the reason i'm concerned about 3 too is recently, there was a landslide several months ago in the area and so some precautions were taken right directly above that. so i'm interested in that part it's not related to the historic preservation commission but there are some consideration i'm interested >> we've had a structural

engineer to look at the building and fortunately it looks good there's concrete foundation. it appears going down we're feeling pretty good about this building thing because obviously it's a tough place to work >> one question for staff. what's our preference over pink colors >> there are some places where we have that you are view over the finish rather at the end of the day staff feels because one of the defining feature see the large-scale signage that's prominent harassing as seen

below the cliff we want to make sure the paint was capable we where weren't or weren't going to dictate the color but the sponsor to have some background information and sharing it with staff so we can include it in our files. >> what a make up be - >> sufficient? >> yes. absolutely. >> the project sponsor proposed is that reasonable. >> i believe that would meet our context. >> it's not just an artists a science so if we have information on the original colors and the appearance of it is acceptable i'd find that would be sufficient. >> we'll be happy or if the

commission wanted we'll followed that into the make up condition of approval and look at them together and and a couple of quick things. the wood citing over concrete i wasn't foreperson this example >> sure i'll provide a little bit of background. so part of the work from the previous owner was to install this concrete wall with the tile. and the detail at the top and staff doesn't feel that's a it meets the standards that it's capable with the property >> that the same? >> yes. >> that's the bank side and front? >> that's correct. >> so the wood paneling would continue on. >> on the outside face.

so we've felt there are two issues one we've originally requested a fence instead of a concrete wall and second there may be a maintenance issue with the concrete wall and the concrete wall is a more permanent structure then maybe the fence could be cut down and the wall or the fence be installed in front of it >> i didn't follow the comments about the conditional use. >> i apologize for not including that in my presentation. the restaurants use was there before it requires conditional