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 use from the planning department

but we added to our motion your encourage time to the planning commission to make sure that the conditions of the approval be folded into the come use of the recuperate >> commissioners pearlman >> just sort of similar to that there was the comment about the architecture addendum has no one explained getting a permit because it's required by dbi. it means our submittal of our documents >> we had this conversation yesterday. >> that seems like a straightforward. >> joy to be clear i understood you get our permit stamped and the architecture addendum it would seem like a different beast than simply getting plans

approved. i understand they have to be approved by dbi. >> well, to the club of how dbi actually issues permits. >> with respect to the brick surface on that stair the brick that was in the luxury or the picture recover shown by mr. fry that brick is on a retaining wall that was holding up basically the dirt from the green rich wall. we're trying to keep the building as it was and if that wall goes up that would be the same as it was before. so that's one distinction i think it worth noting >> if i understand the conditions of approval that argue requesting alternatives

are removal the gate in the rear, the gate and the small retaining wall, if you will, the paint make up restoration and the stair with the misconduct 0 and the brick and there's a fourth one? >> well, there's just - conditions of approval that i just i'm not an architect i've done some of the things and in looking at the conditions of approval that you folks have done before they're more specific you want a particular item done not resubmit all the plans again. the reason i'm concerned it's been a year and a month and we've got the rains coming there are leaks in the building.

i'd like to have information >> so on the fence in back i've worked on a bunch of hillsides and i've also felt once the drainage is left you don't touch it. i'd be a big fan of leaving it there and filling in the acres to make it smooth again but i'd like to not distributor the dirt and water flow off the hill. it sounds like the paint and make up we've settled and the stair i really. fine either way. commissioner highland >> i wanted to further the conversation about the resubmittal. i think those are conditions to

get the final approval so once you submit for your permit once those conditions are met planning will sign off and then you'll get our building permit. it's not an extra step its common. and if there's some specific recommendation that's not too general >> my preservation architect is here and he can speak. it's helpful to go through them we can do that and i have a question for planning staff. we have approved drawings and don't attach some detailed conditions because the project has to go back to annoying and

planning has to make sure that what was approved by the commission meets those requirements. i'm curious it seems like some of them say a longer condition list. and a sure tim fry department staff. one of the conditions for approval will hopefully provide mr. scott and his accountant more certainty about what we're looking at. so being very clear open the types of drawings and dimensions and details we'll gotten this information just we're going to fold it into the project. the second point it's common for us to require make up materials

average providing the clarity about the addendum it's a fairly standard list of approvals the intent is not to hold up the approval but to fit them in with the construction schedule and to meet them out there wherever appropriate >> we're not done yet. >> are we done with questions. >> can i add a few comments. if you go through those two-thirds of them are in the documents the way they're asking for them. several of those aren't even proposed. so it seems far more vague then necessary. i'll point out a few skrirpgz

bullet two is 50 percent replacement in fact, we have 5 percent. and you go down to button tin number 5 requires an agreement so there's overlapping concerns here and i mean that respectfully. we've had four rounds the comments to this date that has honed down a lot of those details. the make up i understand the benefit of make ups. i don't see the benefit of a repaired shingle or of 0 redwood fence standard material there's just so it seems there's a stretch going on here further than necessary.

i think it's been a cooperative process >> thank you. so we're going to open up public comment. any member of the public who wishes to speak, please come to the mike >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm pete i live on greenwich street directly across the steps from the castle. it's a small condo building only 9 unit. so you have to walk out of the steps down to montgomery street every time we're out in that believe we see what is the going on this everyday. the restaurants was closed about 5 and a half years ago it's deteriorated treshl and we're glad to hear mr. scott wants to

do some renovation on the building. because of the long period of no maintenance whatsoever on the building or the yard there has developed really recently a very serious rodent infection we're seeing rats coming across the yard onto the steps you've got tourists coming up and down those steps just last week we're seen rats coming into our yard and a entryway. i want to make sure that mr. scott is ware of that i kind of

doubt it. that's incorporated into whatever renovation is included in the facility. the other thing addresses the comment about the structural integrity of the land there. and while the foundation of the building may very well be intact we've witnessed slippage on the yard that is adjacent to the case he will. earlier this year a large tree had to be cut down because the grounded shifted and pushed the tree over. also there was a brick overhang that went from the steps over to julius castle it collapsed

because of no maintenance and probably the condition of ice it can be turned back into a restaurant we have major concerns about that. we understand we can't restrict the use of that property but there's noise and all those things >> thank you, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners thank you for taxiing me at this hearing. i want to say on behalf of the architect that has done several historic projects both the city, state, and national level we're down from julius castle. personally as you walk past the case he will i pass by it.

for us as a company we've done projects to 371 filling better street and telephone graph hill. we've done the patterson building at stanford and warren's tech center. we went in for support to items that are non-controversial issues. i was going to touch on the color specification and to leave the brick exposes in both proposals you've reached a compromise on those. at least in the telephone graph area article 10 suggested it was jefferson left up to the owner

and their accountant and as i can see their bringing in the original artists of the paint color. and second was on the exposed brick from the pictures we've seen it so you would your movie in a good direction. we don't see any historic pictures of that part of the building it was there when the building was historical built. it doesn't seem like - the brick was added by the other owner that doesn't match the brick that's in the area we're carefully to what was historical in the landmark.

thank you for your time >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm joe. i was not planning on speaking and the reason i came down here i'm a native san franciscan and also a resident of telephone graph hill. i want to see who's crazy enough to take this project on. it's a big job and also to give paula big pat on the back to be tenacious and stick with the project. i think it's important because one paul sincerely wants to take this landmark and restore it. as a residential real estate broker i've done a lot of business it's a prices block and

commands top dollar i did a deal for 15 hundreds bucks for a square foot. we had other restaurant that was turned into a residence. that's the best value for this property. somebody could dig into the hill and a spin this offer for a lot of money. so bringing the restaurants wouldn't yield the i highest amount of money >> thank you. any other member of the public wishes to speak >> good afternoon. i'm bob i'm a professional color consultant and started as a painter and got into historic restoration. member of the victorian alliance

for over thirty. i've restored or colored over 17 thousand historic homes in san francisco. not counting bay area or alameda or how does u outside of the state. that's my background and paul came to me and asked me to give him the colors from julius castle and we specified it. since 1982 i never received one complaint from nobody i got pats on the back. i want to recommend in the spirit of san francisco we have a go back to the original and

i'm saying from 1982 color scheme. i prepared colors on a color board i don't know if anyone has time to look at it. i remember what i did then and when i went out there i conforms what i did in 1982. this is paul's idea of a color scheme which is down the sires a little bit. it's a darker looking look and this is a gayer look in the sense of the old term back in the 60s and 70s and it meant smell. it uplifted and bright. those are in the peach i didn't

attains. the people i never heard one complaint. the place is falling apart and needs a paint job balanced. i'll only hope you'll approve any former colors >> thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public? >> seeing none, public comment is closed and back to commission. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i wanted to thank mr. scott for taking on just like i forgot his name jeff something. those are going to be lost if you don't step forward so thank you. i want to encourage the misconduct 0 open the stair and if that was put there recently there's no reason to keep it. and then with the paint i said

encourage that mr. buck take care; right? design decisions have some weight and validity in our conditions of approval. thank you, thank you >> commissioner highland. we have 9 bullets and if i can be indulged can we go through them. the first bullet seems adequate. the second bullet if we're not anywhere near 50 percent replacement then i don't see a reason why it can't be included. there is a missing word the last sentence on the right h pc at a

regular schedule hearing. i prop we keep that in there. it's important if we get above 50 percent we're not taking wholesale removal. the misconduct 0 i'm fine with. the fourth one i'm not sure is necessary it seems like a lot of work so i suggest eliminating that. the same with the 6th bullet. double check. yeah, the fifth bullet because it referenced a condition assessment that may or may not be necessary. the sixth bullet the specification of the brick cleaning and restoration i don't know if this is more common practice now or anyway, we

should talk about that. the paint providing make up with the colors it sufficient and samples of the woodsideing and doors seems excessive i don't know why that's necessary but the negligentability bullet is necessary. only question is whether or not we keep the sixth bullet >> we recommend keeping it, it's a fairly common practice to at least see the specifications to see how the work will be completed where the notes and the details and the drawings don't have this information. and commissioner highland did you say to strike bullet 5 >> i did.

>> and we'd move up a make up screening scream to bullet 9? >> yeah. to repeat that really it's only number 6 that we have to discuss. >> is there any other comment or make that as a motion then. >> so i will repeat motion to say will make sense and a bullet one will retain as is and bullet 2 stays in if it's less than 50 there's a need to implement it with the addition of at following h pc in the last sentence. misconduct 0 open the brick surface would be - >> bullet that you can strike.

>> yeah. trike 3. bullet 4 constrict. bullet 5 strike and bullet 6 is open for discussion >> yeah, we can leave it and a strike bullet 7 but put the make up into the 9 and strike bullet 8. >> the only thing while we may not need specific information on the wood doors or windows we do feel strongly there should be a material standard be submitted. >> it should be easier than assembling all those materials or samples. >> so that's prior to the materials board showing finishes shall be provide.

>> yeah. >> that was the motion to approve. >> that was my motion to approve with those conditions. >> second. >> thank you actually call the role please. excuse me. i don't know if commissioner highland made the second. thank you, commissioner highland. so on the motion commissioners to approve the conditions striking the third, 4, 5, 7 bullet to include a materials board and the negligent including a make up scheme with that

(calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes it will place you on abc one overall project for cases 136 at 1019 market street adoption for a historic called contract and in case 2012679 for 2250 webster street and 376920th street >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> if i might commissioners we have a hard stop at 4:30. >> the items are 3 miles

contracts and 1019 market. item b is 2550 webster street on landmark and it's historically known as the bore mansion. if you take into account this miles from the application packet can i get the screen up. you'll see we're at this line of the application process when is between september 1st and the end of the year that includes you and with our approval will go to the board of supervisors. the miles act we'll go through a description of all 3 properties. it authorizes local governments

to enter into owners with private historic properties with reduction in their property taxes the contract are reutilized every year. they must be designated on the national register. they must be worth $5 million. the 3 plagues before you today were submitted to the planning department were submitted on may 1st ace been forwarded to the assessor and property tax evaluation. the evaluation is for every property and the assessor offices are working for the evaluation of all properties. this was exhibit d and c for the

webster street property. the evictions will be approveed. the article 11 building the historic architect they submit their plantation for the structure report. this is required as the property exceeded the $5 million thresholds. the department staff have worked with the project plan. they want 0 repair the up banks and the observation of the sheet metal and reglazing all historic windows. the maintenance requires care for the roof and window and the concrete walls. the rehabilitation contract

reflects the h pc contract based on the following items. the property is a designated resource. after reviewing the plan they have the contract and necessary keeping with the secretary it does for rehabilitation and the property meets the exemption career and the historic report shows the historic work to be done on the property. moving into webster street the 3 story building was built in 1896 when was president of the water company. at the time of its application the property was