>> thank you. anyone wishing to speak in seeing none. we'll move on. >> that will place you under department matters. directors announcements. >> thank you. just a couple things to share with you. first we would like to welcome bill kelly as the director

citywide division of the planning department. he will be with us at a future hearing as we move to the preservation element. i also wanted to bring to your attention the next public meeting for the african american historic context statement will be next week on april 24th at the bayview library from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. at this time we are going to try something different. it's going to be an open style event where the public can share their history as well as have more one on one with planners and members of the city advisory committee and the project team. we welcome you along with the planning commission to attend the meeting if you are available. and that concludes my items on the directors

report. >> commissioners matsuda? >> i have a question. i thought there was some kind of photo contest? >> there is still an opportunity for members of public to submit photos and there is a small pool of money for prizes, cities related prizes. >> that's going to correspond with this. you are promoting that as well? >> yes, we are going to promote that at this time meeting as well as the following week there will be a meeting at the ingleside presbyterian church where we'll continue to have a discussion about the context statement. >> when the agenda is formed for this can we have a copy? >> sure. certainly. >> i would like to have that. >> thank you, commissioners, any other questions? seeing none, we'll move on. >> item 2. review of past events at the planning

commission. staff report. >> thank you. a number of items to share with you. first the april 3rd hearing the planning commission commission adopted the open space element with a 4-2 vote with antonini against. the board of supervisors and we expect to have a date in the next several months. at the end of march we forwarded a final copy of the recreation and open space element to the commissioners. however, if you would like the final draft, that has been posted and we'll provide you a link to that as well. also the planning commission unanimously recommended a board of supervisors legislation to wave planning department fees for awnings and signs. the board is expected to take up that item shortly. on april 24th, next week the planning commission will

consider adopting the housing element including eir, this was for a courts order. after a 29 element was established in 2011 and challenged the eir in superior court and the court found that the eir complied with ceqa with all respect to its analysis alternative. the planning department revised the alternative section of theeir and published responses to the document. i just wanted to bring to your attention the reason that this element did not come to you because there is technically no changes to the element and it's a matter of making sure that the eir thoroughly documented the issues. so the commission will take up readoption of the 2009 element at it's next planning commission hearing on the 24th. also, last week, the

board of appeals heard an appeal that i thought we should bring to your attention. it was regarding the issuance of a demolition permit for a 1 story convenience station at the tennis court's. the proposed projects included construction of a replacement station within the same foot print. during the appeal period for the permit, a concerned neighbor filed an appeal to the issuance of the demo stated the communicate station was a historic resource. shortly after the appeal was filed, the project sponsor initiated an abatement which resulted in a substantial amount of deterioration and the character defining features. on january 3rd, arg submitted a historic evaluation and the property is in fact eligible. the

property was eligible on criteria 1 and 3 for architecture. the board of appeals heard at the time about the -- testimony about the loss of resource and not properly evaluating the building. the board expressed disappointment in how it was handled and after a lengthy discussion the board continued the item for 3 months to allow the project sponsors to meet with the neighborhood and find ways to restore the building instead of demolishing and renovating for a new convenience station at the site. a couple months ago

there was some members of the public that raised concern about 2853 broderick of the commission. at that time asked for a report on the status of that project. since then, a new environmental evaluation application was filed on march 4th. the new application was required because the project sponsor is expanding the scope of work as part of the proposed project. that is what's triggering additional ceqa review by the planning department. the proposed new work will be reviewed, we believe within the next month and we'll keep you posted on the outcome of that historic resource evaluation. so that concludes my report. thank you for your patience in getting through those items and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners, any

questions? commissioner johnck? >> yes. so, so that convenience station, that didn't come to us, but you said it, had that come to the project that just went to the board of appeals, that hadn't come to us? >> that is correct because the building was not formally designated. it was determined eligible for the purposes of ceqa. those reviews are handled at the staff level >> you sitd -- said it did go to the committee. you said arg. >> arg was the historic resource consultant part of the ceqa work. >> okay. got it. >> any other questions from staff? seeing none we'll move on. that places you under item 3. landmark designation work program report. >> good afternoon. project

staff here to report to you on the most recent quarterly report for the work program. after our discussions around the budget and request from several commissioners to make the report a little bit more useful we have restructured the report. i want to quickly walk you through some of the changes. if you have comments to make it more friendly we are happy to incorporate those in the next report. once that report is on your calendar. so, again the beginning of each quarterly report will now include a small summary on the civil rights from the last quarter. then we've broken down your designation program into active cases which are the first several pages of individual buildings and the most recently completed task from that quarter associated with those buildings. then

there is a second section active cases for owner designated. those are when the neighborhood groups or other entities are requesting designation of entities outside of the work program. either the program thinks it's largely compliant with the preservation program or the ahp has given us direction to work on those. that is on page four and you will see several properties listed there. beginning on page 6 are the pending cases. so these are landmark designations that are proposed as part of your work program, but we have yet to begin our analysis. either research or preparing a report. all the owners have been notified they are on the work program and from time to time we'll have discussions about the status of their

property on the work program, but other than that, our work has been fairly limited on those properties. and then, beginning on page 11, you will see this is an area where we'll include properties removed from the work program. at this time we have the fly shaqqer pool building which you remember burned down a couple years ago. the last 2 pages include you the recent designations. this is just a way for us to keep a tally and graphic manner of the hpc's accomplishment over the past several years or since the work program was last visited. it includes individual buildings and districts. it's a variant article designation. as part of this report, each quarter, you will also receive this appendix. this appendix contains two items. one is a graph that will show you

graphically just how we are performing in terms of designations from literally the beginning of the program to current day and we have broken that down into landmark districts and individual designations. it maybe more useful to have this graphic produced every year rather than a quarterly basis given the process it takes to move these items through designation process. we are happy to provide it during each, as part of each report if you would like to. and we felt it would be helpful for the commission to understand a variety, the other projects that are in the cue as part of the survey teams day-to-day work. a lot of this work has to do with community initiated historic context statement for other projects funded through the preservation fund committee and also certified local

government grants which we generally receive every year or two to further survey our work or other documentation work in the city. this last page just explains some of the work that's in our current pipeline and then i forgot mention any national register nominations which we bring to you as part of our programmatic agreement with the state that this state review comment on any international compensation before going to the historic resource. with that, i'm happy to take comments or any advice on how to make the report more useful to you. >> commissioner matsuda? >> i have a curiosity question on the appendix for the

designations. from 1980-1989 there was a lot of activity going on with landmark district properties and then it plummeted. could you give me a 1 minute summary? >> sure. what i think is the most likely cause here is a result of the downtown plan. the majority of these properties here were recognized as part of articles, 10 and 11 designations within the c 3rd district. which is compiled of hundreds of buildings at that time. >> one other comment on the memo on pages 9 and 10. for the peace pogda and plaza? does it include the plaza? i

thought it did. it's not japan y town wca. there is a legal fight. i'm trying to figure out what their new official title is. the owner of the property is -- little friends. on page 10, the 1st word is spelled wrong. it's kinmon. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. fry, thank you for organizing the report. i think it's very helpful. this graph is very helpful. but also it's sort of a punch in the gut to be honest with you with how few landmarks we have designated in the last few years. that is all of us not pushing it. it just came on our radar again by expanding the budget for this. but i think that we really need to 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 on