they all had thoughts and ideas and they wanted to bring their own creativity and their personality to bear on the design. what you see is what the community wanted. these ideas all came from the residents of this community. as a result, there is a sense of ownership, pride and responsibility that goes along with what is going to be an exciting park. >> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular meeting. this commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts at any kind. please silence any mobile devices and when speaking for the commission do state your full name.

commissioner haws, commission wolfram, johnck, pearlman. first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission with the exception of agenda i at tems. >> any member of the public wish to speak, come on up? >> good afternoon, my name is i live on broad rick street, that's our family home. i am bidding to you with regard to our next door neighbor 2853

broad rick street, which has been under construction for the last couple of years and we are very concerned with historical preservation issues that have arisen through /repb /sraegs -- the height of the building and changes all around to the exterior of the building. the neighbors on the east and west side and it's on their behalf that i'm speaking today, are deeply concerned with the lift of the building and changes. it is an important structure, historic resource as many of our homes are in that area. because of the structure of the buildings itself and the social relationship to the we would like you to look into the matter and investigate precisely why the historic preservation issues have not

been addressed and while the zoning administrator and the department of city planning and dbi have pulled back the permits and suspended them and are currently investigating it under a seqa environment of environmental evaluation and other issues that have arisen, i think, and all of us in the neighborhood feel that historic preservations are paramount and should come to your attention. we are all concerned with our neighborhood, with this particular structure because allegedly it is the original farmhouse in our neighborhood and it is alleged that it was built somewheres in the 1860's or thereafter, but definitely in the last quarter of the 19th century. as you know we have lost building /opbs broadway and other areas that have been 100 and 125 years old and we are looking forward to having you help us protect the historical aspects of air neighborhood,

particularly with the conduct that's been done in this case. the initial permits were fraudulent. all the permits have been base /-td on false information and have been required to submit revised plans, which we are yet to see and this is now under consideration and we hope that you will look into the matter and be able to address the concerns of the neighborhood. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak on an item not on our agenda? >> good afternoon, it's with great coincidence that i'm here at the same time he is, because the project he's speaking about

i'm the architect of next door. the project is under review under environmental review now for additions to the roof, which will require environmental review. that is it. there is no fraudulent anything on the plans. they're being reviewed because there's been a number of revisions taken place over time and the neighbor next door has continuously appealed it since 2010. >> any other member of the public wish to speak? seeing none we'll close general public comment. >> commissioners, place you under department matters, item one, director's announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners, tim fried department staff. before the director has a few comments, i just wanted to call to your attention the director's report in your packet which includes a which

we mentioned at your previous hearing. if you have any questions about the report both the director and i are available for questions. >> thank you. good afternoon. i wanted to let you know that on friday i attended the annual dinner son sponsored by meeting in san francisco last week. they apparently do this every year they meet in a different city across the country. last week they met in the city and they invited me to it. it was a very interesting meeting. there were about 200 people there, several local weapons, as well as the west coast representatives of the trust from seattle, san francisco and los angeles, each of whom made a short presentation about projects they're working on. the local rep did a report on work he's been doing with the national park service on the

historic structures at owe semitee and he was able to work with the national parks service to save bridges that had, in their previous plans, been slated for removal so it was a very interesting evening. it was very nice for them to invite me to the dinner and get a heads up on what they're doing. this is something they haven't done in san francisco in over 20 years so they apparently do this on a periodic basis and meet in different cities across the country. >> thank you. any questions to the director? >> thanks, commissioners, regarding the comments on the book signing and the event that you just discussed, so i'm interested in knowing what the protocol is for how the commission is represented in attending different events

related to our mission. if this -- i would have been interested in this national trust meeting if it was, you know, more of a public. i mean, i used to work for the national parks service too and i get noticed from them, things like that, but there are things that i'm just not on the mailing /h*eus for, so that's one thing. i'd be interested when things are public, i know it'd be an extra responsibility, but to notify us, number one. and then for instance, the dedication of the landmark -- is there a way that all of us know when something like that is happening? sometimes we -- those of us appointed by the mayor, we get notices from them and maybe it's on a week's notice, that kind of thing, so i should pay closer attention to that because i would have gone to that, but i missed it.

i guess -- i like to have a little more knowledge and organization about where we're going, what we're attending so we can further enhance our public image as dedicated to the mission. >> we can work with president hasz and mr. ionin on making sure the commission is kept /aeu breast of any dedications or occasion as well. i think it would be good to have a commission rep on occasion to these neighborhood meetings. >> of course the bay view opera house is coming up so, you know -- and i plan to, you know, to go to that so we all should know that, at least one or more of us should be attending these events, i think. >> i think another item on that

might be the -- when we're doing the booth at the sunday streets. that'd be great too. >> yeah. thank you for indulging me on that. >> commissioners, anything else for the director? >> no. we'll move on. >> that'll place you on item two, review of the staff report and announcements. >> good afternoon, just a couple items to share with you. i don't have a formal planning commission report. there weren't any items on the calendar that myself and mr. ionin felt were pressing or were of particular interest to the hpc. i'd like you to plea please review your advance calendar and action items. we did include a number of new items based on discussions at

your previous two hearings, in particular getting updates on the golden gate parkland designation, scheduling the draft preservation element for general discussion and a couple other items of commissioner pearlman's discussion of local application of the secretary of standard interiors, et cetera. one thing to point out, we are still working towards the april 2 date for information on the presentation element. that date may slip, just to give you some early morning to the april 16th hearing instead, but we'll certainly keep you posted because we want to make sure you have enough time to review the documents before we have the hearing on that item. also wanted to mention to you the department's participation in the san francisco history expo this past weekend at the old mint.

my understanding, although i wasn't at the event, from our staff that attended it was well attended; there was a great amount of interest in the planning department's booth and a lot of questions around the local landmark designation process. some folks has questions about specific buildings, but there was a lot of interest in our historic preservation program, how it functions, the powers and duties of this commission and we look forward to using that as an educational opportunity in the future and participating at future expos. if you have any questions about the event, happy to report back to you on it further. we're going to debrief with our new communications manager and try to figure out a more robust way, not only to apply some of what we her learned at the history expo, but how we can incorporate some of the questions and topics of

interest in future sunday streets participation that we normally have preservation staff part of. and then finally i wanted to let you know about 151 liberty street. this is a certificate of appropriateness that the commission approved at its december 4 hpc hearing. it was for some modifications and insertion of a new garage within the liberty hill district. the adjacent neighbor who expressed concern at the hpc hearing about the project has filed discussionary review and i'll keep you posted on when that hearing is scheduled. the neighbors' concerns are similar to the ones raised at the hearing and that he feels that the construction -- or the addition to the building is

much too large for the scale of the property and he is also concerned about construction related impacts to his home. but again, i'll keep you posted on developments as we schedule that hearing moving forward. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them, but that concludes my report to you. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners, any questions? seeing none, we'll move on. >> it'll place you under commission matters, item three president's report and announcements. >> the reorder program we're establishing with california preservation foundation, i don't have a full blown report, so i will have that next time for you. we set march 1 as a launch deadline and we're just about there. but that's it. >> commissioners, item four, consideration of adoption draft

minutes for the february 19, 2014 hearing. >> commissioners, any comments or questions? seeing none, any member of the public wish to comment on the draft meeting minutes? seeing none, we'll close public comment, bring it back to commission. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes for february 19, 2014, johnck, matsuda, pearlman, wolfram, hasz. >> yes. >> motion passes unanimously six to zero and places you on item five, commission comments and questions. if i may, commissioners, follow up on preservation coordinator fry's comments about your advance calendar looking forward to your next meeting, march 19. there is a place holder for you to begin considering your rules

and regulations, but there are no other items on that hearing. you may wish to push that out, which would afford me a little more time and cancel that hearing. just a suggestion. >> yeah. we god with that everybody? yeah, i think we have consensus on that. >> okay, very good. we have time, but i'll tentatively put it up for cancellation unless something comes up urgent. >> thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> i we got this letter and we've had a presentation here today and i'm concerned about it because i have had experience with the project sponsor and know that this is the mo of that particular project sponsor so i just wanted to ask, because obviously we don't have the power to do anything, so i just really wanted to ask the department if there could be a follow up to just make sure that if it's in environmental review it's for historic for

the nature of the building. i want to make sure that's been handled properly because there have been many violations by this particular project sponsor in the past. >> sure, we'll have a report for you at your next hearing. >> i appreciate it. thank you. >> commissioner johnck. >> i wanted to comment on mr. fry's comment about the booth that planning had at the history expo last weekend. it got great deal of business. people were very, very interested in it. i think that they were very much in favor of the planning commission showing up. i know that there was a lot of comment and i think people found it to be extremely helpful so i really think that that was a job well done. >> thank you. commissioners, any other comments or dis/khroefrb sures. seeing none, we ole move on.

>> that'll place you under your regular calendar item, case number 2013408a san carlos street, a request for a certificate of -- >> the project before you is a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed project at 354 to 356 san carlos street which is located in the liberty hill landmark district. it consists of exterior operations including raising the existing building by 18 inches, including removing the stucco siding, vinyl windows, non historic go /rapblg door, rebuilding the entry stair and wood including adding additional treads and risers to accommodate for the increased building height, installing siding, installing new windows on the primary and rear facades.

installing new trim on the bay windows and porch and adding a new leaf door on the facade. the project would which is located underneath the exterior stucco, if feasible. additional testing of that would occur in the future. in addition, the project would construct a new rear horizontal addition and rear deck. this rear deck would be ho kated on the site of an existing deck and would measure approximately 11 feet 7 inches by 8 feet and would be clad in wood siding to match the rear. these hearings have not been scheduled yet. to date the this inquiry has not expressed support or opposition to the project. department staff recommends approval with conditions. to ensure the proposed work is undertaken in conformance with the certificate of

appropriateness, staff recommends, one, as part of the building permit the project sponsor shall submit additional information, including information of scarring or shadow lines that removes trim. department preservation staff shall perform a site visit upon removal of the stucco. the project shall submit a revie vised elevation reflect tiff of any physical evidence. the elevation should be ensure that the proposed trim and details are compatible with the surrounding district. new trim and mill work will be base reflect the physical the subject property's original construction and all painted or math finish. two, as part of the building permit the project sponsor shall provide a window schedule which shall include the material type and size of each

window and product manufacturer specifications. three, they shall outline the paint removal methodology. in general the paint removal shall follow accepted paint removal the project sponsor shall seek approval from the department preservation staff and test the paint removal in a discreet location to determine the gentlest means and restoration possible. the project sponsor is present and has prepare add short presentation. i'm available for any questions. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm the architect for the project. the owners purchase d this property to redo it and bring

it up to current standards. it's going to be renovated throughout the inside, as well as throughout the outside. as you can see for the exterior, it's a stucco 60's project where we'll be bringing it back to a contributing building in the district. here's the raising of the building is primarily to make the existing garage more accessible. it's a very steep garage now and as you can see by these lines, raising it will actually bring it more in line with the adjacent properties who already have garages or are taller on the first level above the street. in addition, there's this very

funky industrial scale gate and granite columns which will be removed in a more reasonable front yard placed in its place . that's really all i have to go over. i think rich did an excellent job explaining the scope. if commissioners have any questions feel free to ask, i'll answer. >> commissioners. commissioner pearlman. >> i do have one question. is the reason you didn't raise it more was because of the stairs? >> no. it was by the review of planning staff, i did request i think a 3 foot raise, but they felt that was too much. >> i mean, given that the other houses on the block are -- the bays are higher, i'm wondering is there a reason to not -- >> if that's still an acceptable point, we can go

another 6 inches, that'd be great. >> do you want to respond? >> department staff, in general, we find that when they're raising a building we look at the adjacent quite a bit in relationship and from a foot of 18 inches you don't see the disparities in the massing and heights and once you start going more than 18 inches that disparity become a lot more present. education /perblly in liberty hill where the facades read fairly evenly across, we found that i think higher than 18 inches would adversely impact the building because you'd have to add additional steps into it and the proportions of the ground floor relative to the massing above would also change. >> thanks. >> we'll open this up to public. any member of the public wish to speak on this item?

seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring back to commission. commissioner johnck. >> i was curious, number one, apparently the sponsor applied on april 18, 2013 and the hear /s-g now -- is this a good time period as far as -- do you consider this a good standard for almost a year it has took to get this to the commission? we did have to go through some environmental review for the project so that also ended up impacting the project schedule. >> but generally you try to get some of these certificates done -- >> i'd say this is unusual in terms of that circumstance. >> all right. also, i was just curious what struck me, and this is just a general comment, which maybe you can comment on this, that as we consider these certificates, it struck me that we were very focused on the

facade. i mean, i looked at all the different standards, and i was thinking there's going to be continue wall need to expand, revise, accommodate -- well, not only -- there's treatment that's happening here, but more space and better utilization of space in the 21st century. i was thinking if all these houses started doing a lot in the backyard, all the sudden that would change the character of the neighborhood. if there was a major trend towards huge expansions in the backyard and that kind of thing. i think this looks fine, but i was just wondering how you are looking at that kind of a thing. >> well, can conduct our review against the planning code as well so we balance our

preservation concerns, as well as the rear work, rear yard and mid block open space and basically trying to strike a balance between the two. a lot of liberty hill has quite a lot that exceeds into the rear yard already so, like, in this instance they're removing a stair but then rebuilding on the site of an existing deck so the kind of building mass -- they actually get a little more open space at the rear while still providing for a little additional mass and a new deck so -- >> so it's a combination of the design too. i mean, i think this looks great, but i was just thinking about that -- yeah, great. >> i'm wondering if there were any historic photos that might have shown what this house might have looked like prior to the -- >> the closest we have is something from '76.

sometimes -- which it still looks the same. sometimes you can find work in the assessor records, but they didn't have any of those photographs that pop up so -- >> yeah. because it always begs the issue about are we creating false historicism and here something looks nice and fits in, and it's like, well, you know, it's likely it was like that, but we're just guessing. sort of brings up that issue. >> given the extent of liberty hill, a lot of it was done by tria, the houses on the existing block follow a pattern and have a very similar mass and ornamentation. we push it had architect to look at more intact examples that are on the same block and that was also part of our

reasoning in terms of the better idea of what was actually there at some point. >> excellent, thank you. >> commissioners, anything else? commissioners johnck? >> i move approval with the staff condition. >> thank you. >> on that motion then, commissioners to approve with conditions, commissioners johnck. >> yes. >> jones. >> yes. >> matsuda. >> yes. >> pearlman. >> yes. >> /wof /wof. >> yes. >> hasz? >> yes. >> that motion passes ewe unanimously six to zero. that places you on item seven to henry adams street, consideration to adopt resolution for designation. >> good afternoon, susan parks, department staff. the item before you is a recommendation to adopt a resolution recommending to the board of supervisors the article ten landmark

designation of 2 henry adams street, historically known as the dunham and carrygan building. since the last hering the attorney's office has issued a draft designating ordinance, which was included in your packet. the ordinance require that the owners adhere to programs at a future day-to-day. copies of the draft signed program available for your review. the department will forward the recommendation to the supervisors. this building is important for its association for events and architecture. the only remaining company the business that contributed directly through its products fore