set a goal, an agreeable goal of so many per year. because as i said there is a couple that have language wished that public structures that should not be an issue. i would like to actually maybe everybody think about and then we'll speak more about a hard number goal. and then also, when does our new budget kick in when we get a little bit extra? >> july 1st. generally in terms of the staffing for the work program, generally we get the recommendation or the approval to start hiring in the fall. what our experience has been is posting it, doing our interviews and making a formal offer. we can usually

have some if something is approved july 1st we can have somebody in place by the end of the year or the beginning of the following year. >> thank you, commissioner hyland? >> we have a head count on this? >> yes. it starts with half then to a full. commissioners any other questions on this? commissioner matsuda? >> i have one more question. under the active or pending cases are there any other properties that we need to know that may need special attention on expedited attention. like we made special attention to that. are there other properties that we need to know about or the potential to have any challenges head of them? >> tim fry, department staff. not that i'm aware of. i

would say out of all the pending properties, i think one of the most pressing concerns we have is about the condition of the mother's building. but as i mentioned recently the rec's park department along with the arts commission has submitted a fund committee proposal to do a condition's assessment on that property which will be done this year and we hope to bring that report to the commission once it's ready and they finalize it. we are looking to how much seismic intervention is required to keep this building occupied and standing and that may affect your decisions on how to pursue that designation in the future. >> commissioner johnck? >> echoing commissioner hasz about setting a goal for

landmarking wouldn't it be a priority list and have us at the next meeting because that's just a matter of saying we want 10 next year. but these are the ones we would like you to work on. >> yeah. i think we are going to reagendaize this item. >> commissioner highland? >> is it possible to get an update on the dozer building to the work they are do not on the front? >> sure. we'll contact the project sponsor and see what we can get for the next hearing. >> one last item towards commissioner matsuda's comment. i know the sailors union is coming up with a development pretty soon? >> yeah. >> that is going to be hitting some

>> we have had some very fruitful discussions with them and forwarded a landmark designation. we'll continue our research. >> okay. no further questions or comments? seeing none, we'll move on. city clerk: that will place you under commission matters, item 4. president's reports and announcements. >> i have no announcements. if we can move our rules for the end. we have a couple people here. >> in that case item 5, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for the historic preservation commission hearing of april 2, 2014. >> commissioners, do we have any comments, corrections?

seeing none, i'm going to open to public comment. any members from the public would like to comment on the draft minutes. seeing none, back to commission. >> i move they about approved. >> second? >> thank you. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes for april 2, 2014. commissioner highland, commissioner johnck, >> i'm going to have to abstain because i was on the leave. >> you can still vote. it's one of those odd things. >> okay. >> commissioner p johnck, matsuda, commissioners wolfram. that passes 6-0. that places you on item 6, comments and questions. >> commissioners do we have

any comments, disclosures? seeing none we'll move on. >> item 7 moves you to the end of the calendar. consent calendar all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the historic preservation commission and maybe acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the commission, the public. or staff so request. we have one item. item 8: 2014.0323h r. sucre; 4155 575-91088 1235 mission street, located on the south side of mission street between 7th and 8th streets, assessor's 3728, lot 089. request for a permit to alter for modification to exterior openings on the non-historic 1967 addition. no work would occur on the historic terracotta-clad portions of the existing building. the subject property is designated as category ii significantt in article 11 of

the san francisco planning code, and is located within the slr service/light industrial/residentiall zoning district and 68-x height and bulk limit. 1234 >> anyone would like to pull this item off consent? any member of the public? seeing none. >> i move to prove. >> on that motion to approve, commissioner highland, jong, matsuda, wolfram and hasz. that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and places you on regular calendar item 9. item 9: 2013.1211a r. sucre; 4155 575-91088 101 townsend street, located at the southwest corner of townsend and 2nd streets, assessor's 3794, lot 015. request for a certificate of appropriateness for exterior alterations, including storefront alterations on the ground floor level, window replacement on the second and third floors, construction of a new roof deck, and patching, repair and repainting of the exterior stucco and removal of non-historic elements from the street facades. the subject property is a contributing resource to the south end landmark district, and is located within the muo mixed-use officee zoning district and 105-f height and bulk limit. sf 9134 >> good afternoon commissioners. richard fry department staff. this is the contributing resource of the south land market district. the proposed landmark for including replacement of front door openings on second street with new glaze doors. the project will install canopies on the door ways on second street. window replacement and second and third floors. which have been altered somewhat over time would be replaced with new compatible

substitute aluminum win -- windows. and facade including signage and fire escapes and patching repair of concretes exterior and construction of a new roof deck and pent house. the majority of the proposed work conforms to the scope of work delegated to the department staff for administrative secretary of -- certificate of appropriateness review. to date the department has received two public inquiries of the proposed project. neither have expressed -- to ensure the proposed is take with conformance with the

certificate of appropriateness. staff recommends the following: the project sponsor should provide sample materials for the core gated metal and color and finish for the identified materials. the materials should be a matt finish. two, prior to the site permit, the project sponsor should provide a t profile. which matches the profile of the existing windows and would be the most accurate. the project sponsor is present and can answer any questions. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, commissioners do we have any questions of staff for the sponsor? seeing none. we will open up to public comment. any member of the

public wish to speak on this item? seeing none, we'll close to public comment. bring it back to commission. my own request here, is first i want to commend the sponsors for bringing this back in the program. thanks for taking on that project. i would like to say about the corrugated metal if we can have a factory finish on the paint so it looks like a high end material and it would be a color that would go in the same color hue as the same building or approved color for staff, as long as it's not a raw metal. commissioners do we have a motion or any other comments before that? >> i move approval with the conditions, yes. >> just point of clarification, would you like to add that in the conditional approval? >> yes. thank you. >> second. >> thank you very much.

>> just to clarify that motion is to approve with conditions as amended? >> right. >> on that motion, commissioner highland, jong, matsuda, hasz. that passes unanimously. and places you on item 10. item 10: 2013.0693a s. caltagirone; 4155 558-66255 940 grove street, north side between steiner and fillmore streets. assessor's block 0798, lot 010. request for certificate of appropriateness to revise the rehabilitation project previously approved under hpc motion no. 0147, including: 11 modifying the configuration and location of the new garage; 22 modifying the location of window and door openings at the north and east facades and replacing windows at all facades; 33 replacing the historic wood siding at the north façade; 44 reinstalling a window at the west gable end at the attic level to match the previous condition; 55 increasing the height of the third floor deck and reconfiguring the elevator penthouse roof; 66 restoring the front doors and roof finials; 77 constructing a balcony at the east façade; and, 88 adding fencing and gates to the landscape. please note that many of the proposed changes have already been completed and that the applicant is requesting that the commission legalize the work performed without the benefit of a permit. the subject property is a

contributing building within the alamo square landmark district. the property is zoned rh-3 residential, house, three-familyy and is in a 40-x height and bulk district. sf 101234 >> hello commissioners. shelley. department staff. the project before you is for appropriateness request originally approved by the commission in 2011. the project sight is located at the corner of grove and steiner. it's to allow the construction for the three new buildings. after the 2011 certificate of appropriateness was approved the property was sold in 2012 and the new owners began work under the existing permits. during the work, design modifications were developed and were completed. and the project sponsors also decided that they would like to modify the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness even further. the request today is to legalize the project as completed and further approve further alterations which are window replacement and replacement of siding and trim, modification of the proposed garage design and landscape improvements. the scope of work is fairly complex and i have outlined in your case report. in the

architects are here to go through plan in more detail. i'm going skip to that and go to the recommendations which the to approve the project with several conditions. those conditions are that the project sponsor shall use a smooth finish concrete for the walls of the new driveway to distinguish it from the historic retaining wall. also, that the project sponsor shall match the pattern texture and finish of the historic board form concrete wall wherever repair or replacement is required. the third condition is that the project sponsor shall install a solid wood garage door with a paint finish similar in tone so the garage door does not call attention to itself. the fourth condition is that the project sponsor shall use the same railing detail at the roof deck and the proposed

balcony. and the next that the project sponsor shall submit repair justification for the tile and marble step along with the department preservation staff. the last is that the sponsor shall complete the site visit in order to verify compliance with the project description and the conditions of approval. so with that, i would like to turn it over to the architects and the property oranges -- owners are here and would like to speak. >> just with two party speaking you have 10 minutes total. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners, my name is louis is stat ner, the architect. our focus is to make the changes to the building. i hope we have put that in a format that is

legible and acceptable and we are here to discuss that in detail. i'm here with federico and luke winter my two employees who have been very involved with the details and very involved with the 10 steiners. the painted ladies, the full restoration which is true to the original house and we are the architects of the pained -- painted gentlemen which is a project you approved. we hope to think we have some sensitivity and would like to present that. we present this facade because of the complexity of the changes. we are very happy to do that. perhaps there are some more important questions that i should ask you if you have before i go into details that perhaps are not interested to you or you wish to proceed. >> because you are on your time. why don't you go ahead and present.

>> i realize that preservation issues are not a matter of p be opinion but we have 30 signatures, 30 with me today that would support what we are doing. mr. in gel will take over now. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is federico in gel, i work for butler architects. if it's okay i will review the changes by elevation on the fourel variations -- elevations to the house. this should be the primarily package. this is

the south elevation along grove street. if i can go through the changes from the larger scope changes to the smaller ones. i will start in the lower right hand corner. we have modified the garage entry from what was previously approved in the december 7, 2011, hearing. we feel it's a better configuration for the garage. it's actually subterranean garage in the basement. it's a smaller garage door. the opening is 11 feet. the garage door is about 10 feet wide previously 16-foot garage door was approved in the level above that in the basement level. if you look at the top right hand

corner, we made a series of changes to the 1940 addition of the building. if you see that corner that is a small in fill of the notch between the original 1895 structure and the 1980 addition. the decks were reconfigured slightly. the deck was raised 18 inches from the previous reconfiguration, to support the load of the new deck. if we head towards the front of the house, the entry porch we are proposing to repair the existing steps and landing. there is a decorative tile on the landing as noted. if you go to the corner, lower

corner, left hand side we are proposing -- there is a handicap ramp. we will in fill that with a smooth texture concrete from the original concrete. if we turn to the following page, 8.3. this is the second primary facade. sorry. if we can go to 8.31. this is along steiner street. there is very few

modifications here. again, if you start at the lower right hand corner we are in filling the pedestrian ramp. we are modifying the chimney to bring it up to regulation requirements on the upper left-hand corner. some of the smaller things we doing, we are adding vin ules. it was removed at a date that is not known. we would like to have those back. what i should have mentioned before, an overall what we are doing that has no impact on these two facades is we are replacing all windows with og lugs. the only difference from the original

windows is that they are dual glazed windows. now if we go to a.3. this is the rear facade of the house. the east elevation. it is visible from the public right-of-way. most of this elevation consist of the 1940s edition. we are making a few changes from what was previously proposed and improved. again starting at the top. the top roof deck was raised about 18 inches for structural reasons. there is a little shed roof that is inconsistent to provide overhead for an elevator

shaft. we treated this a little bit more utilitarian. so openings and windows do not lineup. one more second. kind of on the lower center, there is a french door with side lights and a balcony we are proposing. the last elevation which is the north elevation on 3.4 as you see from the shading, they -- this --

elevation was a school style house that resulted from 2011 hearing. some of the changes that were proposed here what was approved. we are mostly rekon figconfiguring -- the utilitarian facade where opening is not necessarily lined up, but they are in style and size keeping with the over all building style. again, a top right corner, a chimney is reconfigured. the siding was replaced. some of it matching the existing tongue and groove siding is placed on the drop siding. to make-up for that, we extended the belt courses at the front

of the house here, 10 feet into this -- elevation. wrapping the elevation on the top left corner a penthouse from the shed roof and from the raised rear roof deck. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> again we are available for questions and you have the graphics here and i would appreciate any information that you need. >> thank you. >> commissioners? any questions, comments? >> commissioner matsuda? >> i just have a procedural question. that the design modifications were completed without approval from the planning department. why was that? >> because the property owners did not submit permits and

proceeded without permit prove with some of the work. some of the work has completed without a permit and the other work is proposed to be permitted. it's noted in the plan which work and have been completed already. some of it is evident in the photos as well. the siding replacement were the primary scopes of the who, that proceeded without permit. >> okay. >> commissioner highland? >> this is a project that came before us that we did not prove -- approve and we asked for it to come back. >> the windows, does this reflect the windows that were installed without permit or were those being taken out and these put back in? >> these are the windows that were installed without permit. we did a site visit and measured the details of the windows that were installed

without permit and they do in fact match the historic windows from a very similar building across the street and they are very similar to what we normally see in double hung frame window openings. the difference is they have a dual glazing and there is a slight intent in the glazing to meet title 24. >> the siding on the north elevation is that also existing where it was installed without proper approvals, right? this is showing what has been installed already? >> that is correct. the shaded area shows the area of siding which was removed. quite a bit that this facade was removed as a result of taking the 1950 addition from the demolition of the 1950s edition, but the majority was replaced with

dual siding. >> much better package. >> i agree. >> because that was a hot topic. even though it was shaded, the ban ding is to keep it and resolve the corner without the others going in. >> okay. any other comments before we do public comment? seeing none. we'll open up to public comment. we have one speaker card. irma cobb. >> good afternoon. thank you for giving me a chance to speak to this issue. i was here last year when it came before you. i live across the street in the same block. and i have watched the work going on over the several months. i have the same question that commissioner matsuda had as to why this work was even

started without a permit and i asked it before and i still have not received any response as to why it was done. we are not dealing with people who have just come into san francisco. all of us know we need permits to make any kind of changes. i do remember when we were here last year the question about the windows came up. windows seem to be very important in the block because it took me 6-8 weeks to get approval just to change two windows in the front of my house. so i am wondering if this is a precedent that is being set that work can be done without permit and once it is done, then an appeal for approval is then made. so, i am coming to you to ask questions to see if i can get answers on that. i know that other work that has been done not in this area,

but in other areas without permit has had to be dismantled or a penalty applied. i understand this is a large project and with that understanding there is a great deal of interest in it both from those who live in the area and those who come to the area. it's a landmark. we all know that. there are certain things that are expected and required. so i am just concerned that this is something that is being done that is different from what i understand that we do. so i come to you for questions and answers and hope i will get a response from that. thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public wishing to speak on this item? >> i'm ted, former owner of the property and here just

again to share my support for what the current owners have done with the building. when i sold them the building, i owned it from 2009 until 2013. it had been used as a school for the previous 40 years and was very run down. the windows were all perhaps the original stashes but in many cases laminated window panes that were abused over the years and oftentimes screwed together from both sides. i know the current owners wanted to get this project completed quickly and to the nice neighbors comments, i believe they have done an incredible job. if you drive by and see the property, it's a landmark and serves the painted ladies and that building and my project next door very well. the work that they have done is beautiful. on the subject of work that