bayview sees a higher return for the business and i read today their released their spaces and fired 5 hundred people or whatever the number. the building itself and the landmark worthiness is there but it's my concern that, you know, it's one thing to say if a certain industry doesn't excited why she we change things and it's taking up many, many buildings in this area and i hate to see that as buildings become for landmarks but it's allowing this to be a different neighborhood now we'll have to change the name to tech >> i'll comment i'm going to

vote for this one but up the street they cleared that one out and it's one hundred and 50 thousand square feet i think page bought up the street for those fortune folks as well. very good point and we have to be cognizant of it but we'll be aware of it here. we have a moved and seconded on the floor any comment. call the roll >> on that motion commissioner honda. commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. commissioner matsuda. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and sxhigs president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. and place you on item 14 for the next case from 133 to golden

gate avenue. in the map zoning for the area for golden gate avenue. and a good afternoon president hasz and members of the board i'm from the planning department. this was introduced by supervisor kim to rezone the map area. the church may at that particular time in the program and the second is a general plan amendment it expands the density area of the downtown plan to include another area. the general amendment is required so that the ordinance support by supervisor kim. this places any changes to the

property including the rezoning there this commissions preview. article 11 buildings can sell their floor area to any eligible property in the downtown area. those properties are allowed to develop but buying and selling of t dr can only occur in the district. the application which will have after the rezoning if it takes effect a they'll be required to submit the prestige and maintenance plan that describes any proposed prestige and rehabilitation of work and guarantees the work and up keep of the church. it's required to meet the standards for the treatment of historic properties. the planning commission voted to

approve that and they will vote both on the zoning map and the general planning meeting on the january 23rd hearing. we remedy approval to the board of supervisors. the full basis of our positive remedies is in summary the rezoning won't increase the subject property not negatively effect the surrounding neighborhood and has not obey part of a rezoning project that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. thank you commissioners. >> colleagues, any questions or comments? seeing none, any member of public wishes to speak on this item. >> i'm edward i'm assisting

church in taking us through the rezoning process. i want to add perhaps what you have in your booklets. it's one of the most challenged parishes it's a constant realty. the church doesn't have the financial resources for the repairs and maintenance as much as much less the 27 windows which are where the fund would be spent and earmarked once the t dr are sold. it's an oven called oasis and the windows are unstable and mesopanels are going badly and their ripe with cracks. several of the windows are in critical need of conservation

and repair they were installed in 1908 to replace the ones of 1906 that are this represents one of the final examples in the united states. this is artistic and has historic value. we've done quite a bit of community outreach on this and have tremendous support those include the tenderloin corporation and the e pips and a st. anthony's foundation and the university of california and harassing law and sf heritage and, of course, the planning department. i'll read one quote from a letter. the heritage strongly supports from 133 to 130 golden gate

avenue for the t dr program >> thank you. any public comment? . seeing none, back to you, commissioners. >> i move approval of the rezoning. >> thank you. >> sounds important. >> if there's nothing further commission there's a moved and seconded to adapt a recommendation. >> sxhvld. commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. commissioner matsuda. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and commission president hasz. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 15. the veterans building 401 van ness avenue for appropriateness >> good afternoon, commissioners department staff. the item before you is a

replacement of the upper skylights on the veterans building. this is pegged as landmark number 84 and a tribtd resource to the landmark. this is being approved by the historic preservation commission case no. 2011. the commission approved the skylights and with a corp. roof with new skylights. within the previous approved project it would have a flush profile between the skylights and a metal roof, however, bones the analysis by the mustards this can't be repeal indicated due to water issues.

therefrom there's to replace the skylight by one of 3 options replace the skylights with new skylights with new daily option banks with replace the existing skylights with an existing e existing sheet metal to match the rehabbed roof and option 3 to replace the existing skylights that will be in the shape of the original skylights. it was completed with the veterans building and received one phone call expressing support for the project. to date the adapt has received one electronic project and they did not support nor oppose it. the department has no issues with the proposed issue and is

determined that all work is meeting standards. the department staff recommends option c for the profile of the roof and will allow for versus ability. it will have the upper skylights between the metal panels and this project will preserve the landmark district. to insure that the proposed work is in compliance with the project one as part of the permit the produce sponsor will have approval by the prestige staff and the project sponsor should have the daily of the skylight detail and the public works are present if you have

any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and that concludes my presentation. thank you >> good afternoon president hasz and commissioners. i'm the cities project manager for the conveniences building. and i'm going to go quickly through the slides many of which you have in your packet. just as a constitutes update we've start the construction in july and are 25 percent into the construction and i believe president hasz you took a quick tour. this is the 1932 photograph of what we have. as you can see the building was designed as a twin to the opera house and the architect tripod very hard to make it to down play the skylights most people don't know they're there.

the problem with this design it - because of bach lack of a curb and many other reasons the technology started to leak almost medically. we have memos from cuss to understand saying the roof t is leaking. so i'll go quickly through. this is a roof as it is. did upper skylights are the ones you literally can't see from the street but they're there. and they have a show will slope. we've tried to reproduce the flush conditions on the skylight and it was acquit difficult we were able to maintain the profile you have now what is there so you will have the same

look it will be in sync and match what was done in 1933 where the revolver was a gray white material a lead cannot corp. this is the area of the skylight we were talking about. we started to get shop drawings. we have to discover that the details will require a curb and other types of flashing and i'll show it to you quickly. this is the floor below the skylights which the san francisco iron are a is going to be developing and basically those of you who are not

familiar with the skylights they're on on top of with a lay light ceiling below did you see a buff ceiling that's worn and we'll have to replace it but you can't see the bottom of the ceiling. so those are just some quick pictures of the building from the outside. you can't see the skylights from this view. those are the skylights we're reproducing that's the one on the top we're discussing today. so this view shows you the skylights that we're have to replace so replacing the bottom ones we have a proposal for the

top ones between the ceiling there is cat walks and a ductwork and so on it's easily assessable. and here again, some idea of what the skylights look like in the interior. a section as i mentioned we've - with the law light below you don't see this section from the interior of the this neither from the outside of the building though if you were on top of above the building you will see that. those are the details we've developed and what we were unfortunately have to do if we replace the skylights is replace this curb and we'll not think guaranteed it's leak prove. carolina from the consultants is

here as is nancy goldberg our architect. this curb completely is not in keeping with the architecture of the building the skylight becomes for prominent and we have the curb is seen over here. it's somewhat unsightly to us and we're not guaranteed it will work because the slope is to show will. more details. so one part we had was to have the roof panels undercover the skylights as revolver panels is it going to restrict light into the units below there's too much light on this floor below and we

talked to the opera and they look forward to no skylights in the area it gets a lot of heat and lights. so in functioning it was a determinal. so what we're suggesting at this point we cover the skylights with the metal panels zinc rooflg and keeping using metal deck as a basis to support it in between the skylights so when our inside the attic and there are cat walks you'll see where the skylights were. if you have a time where we want to have the skylights replaced it will be clear where they used

to be so you can easily do it do a joint to take out the metal joint and put it back with the skylights. it's reversible in that sense. those are detailed that are contrary showing the metal roof in lieu of the skylights. and it was would look like this the sheep skylights in the bottom and the metal roof. finally, we thought we're not role in favor of doing this it doesn't make sense to draw a line on the outside of the this to show where the skylights were. it's an indication from the outside it's not anything i can

see it's actually going to be a little blip in the metal siding we're not in favor of it. so that concludes my presentation and nancy was interested in speaking >> i'm nansz combolg beggar with the company we're the prestige architect for the project. i want to add my $0.02 to what tara are a just said. one of the important points she explicit mention this building saups was created at least from the exterior the twin of the opera house. so the architect was concerned even on the revolver level of matching all the exterior fooz of the building including the

roof. there was a symmetry one of the reasons that this upper skylight was to subtle and flush it would read like a roof. that is an important point and that along with the extremely deteriorated the existing ones can't be retained. if we put back the skylights they'll have to be water together. and what this means is a far less subtle design a non-flush design that wouldn't match the skylights nor be like the matching opera house. we can achieve the symmetry and,

in fact, the revolver without the skylights would be closer to the original isolate design then if we tried to pit backwater tight skylights. also as tara are a mentioned given the change of the -- on the fifth floor the location is not deservable but the skylights are reversible should they be discovered to be put back. the designs not only meets the secretary of the standards but it's the design the author intended >> commissioners, any questions or comments? >> commissioner wolfram. i have a question i'm a little bit cuffs because in your presentation you said that the

opera or the folks didn't like option a because of the change in the appearance and different from the flush appearance but at the same time, you said those skylights are not visible at all. that doesn't seem like that's american peopan argument this is for the cost savings? and in terms of the function it could be take care of >> we wanted to put the isolates back in but we done or said southern problems. when we say it's visible and not visible it's the fifth elevation of the roof.

we feel that even if you can't see those skylights from the street you know it's still sort of not appropriate to do something totally against what the original architect intended. replacing the panels is not that much chamber and the opera is taking care of the glazing and there is so much light that comes in because when the ceiling are not there it's a problem for them as you can imagi imagine. it was difficult to get the right amount of light in. we have things below this that's an media education room and a

custom shop and set forth. their delighted about the natural light there's just too much of that. we wanted to let you know it's not a cost issue >> although they're not visible from the street they are from buildings. >> commissioners, any questions or comments? for staff or sponsor. any public comment on this item? we have to speaker cards (calling names) >> good afternoon chair and members of the commission. just briefly on behalf of the san francisco for the posts of the american legion we don't

take sides with the project sponsors regarding the choice between alternative a and c that's a matter of judgment. however, we request for a slight modification of the condition recommended by staff. & as we understand the condition they provide a mock of reviewed by staff we request when the project sponsor praufrz that make up to staff that the san francisco post to the american legion who were beneficiaries of this building receive the notice of the bring your attention to see what what it consists of and the

appropriate comment >> thank you. >> good afternoon. commissioners president hasz i'm paul the vice chair the american legion competent that oversees the veteran building and is the sole beneficiary of the trust we take a great interest in and how project is prooegz. i want to express our gratitude to all the staff at the department of public works as well as the contractor in keeping us in the loop as this project progresses. we're happy with that. as to today's proposal from the city we would like to support not to contradict jerry too much but option b is the one to go for. i map to be a civil engineer

with 28 years of experience with roofs and the like. i've looked their plan and met with the staff and the designers in seeing how a skylight can work it's nearly impossible the flushed skylight is a difficult daily. by eliminating the skylight you eliminate a series of problems. the nearly unsoluble part is the water leak and the fourth floor didn't need the additional light

points that's going to be produced by remaining skylights and it will match the opera. if you're not familiar with the roofs take a walk around the block and tara are a is right you can't see the skylight from a distance you can but the skylight is not an important issue. option c isn't it's not a big deal one way or the other but on a low slope revolver if you add another kicker just to provide the architecture line water will collect and deteriorate the roof more quickly. i ask you to look at option b

>> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> go ahead. >> good afternoon president hasz and a members of the commission. i'm a member of the commission i've been the past chairman and now the executive director of the veterans success center. we're all residents 0 from cross the street. we hope this will be moved forward with full speed so we can get back into the knowledge by the way, being away from the veterans building has affected our americans legion and we're having problems of transportation and this is part of the men legion a in the course place to give jobs to

veterans. our main veterans building is making it difficult for our veterans to get the job training in terms of employment. i encourage you to move quickly. i'm not a technical person but whatever option you choose do it quickly >> thank you. >> commissioners i'm jim i've been involved in safekeeping matters. i rise to make a picky point in the context of the larger issue. the roof matter came up before you and listed the architect at the blaine and blake well. i sent e-mails that the firm was called blackwell and brown and have been resve