>> thank you. next item. >> item 9, questions and matters. >> any questions or matters? seeing non, next item, please. >> next item is item 11, adjournment. >> adjourned. >> good afternoon, welcome to the historic commission. please set off any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking, please state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. >> here. >> commissioner high land. >> here. >> commissioner jung. >> here. >> commission erer. commissioners on your agenda is general public comment. at this time members may address the commission except

on agenda items. your opportunity to address is commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting the member may address the commission. >> any member wish to speak on any item not on our agenda. >> hello, i wanted to make a brief announcement about an upcoming community meeting we're holding on june 7, that's a saturday, in regards to the san francisco la tina context statement which we've received a grant to carry out in partnership with the san francisco la tina historical society so i wanted to invite all of you and any member of the public that would be interested in attendsing. thank you. >> any other member of the public wish to speak. seeing none, close public comment.

>> that will place you on to director's announcements. >> good afternoon, tim fry, director's report was included in your packet. as you can see there was only one announcement, which was regarding today's hearing and presentation by vince michael. other questions, happy to relay them to the director or mr. jocelyn is also here and can address your questions as well. >> commissioners, any questions? seeing none, we'll move on. >> commissioners, item two, review of past events, the planning commission, staff report and announcements. >> tim fry again, department staff. couple items to share with you regarding past planning commission hearings. the first, at the may 8th planning commission hearing the department provided an update on our implementation as it's related to the mayor's directive on housing and

materials outlining our procedural changes are included in your correspondence folder. you'll see how we're treating procedures for removing illegal dwelling units, but the department is working with the mayor's office and we're exploring ways to increase housing production and affordable housing. the working groups are meeting now and are going to make recommendations in late july and once those recommendations are ready we'll provide those to you when they're available. also wanted to make you aware of a planning commission action regarding the project at 163490 pine street. the planning commission at its last hearing certified the eir adopted ceqa findings and approved the project. the project involves the

demolition of five buildings, which were identified as an eligible district associated with auto uses and while there was still considered a demolition, they september three facades of the five total buildings. they approved the project, but recommended the facade closest to van vn van ness also be removed. and i have a couple renderings that i'll pass along for you just to jog your memory and if you have any further questions about the project we're happy to provide those at a future date. that includes my comments and happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners? seeing none we'll move on. >> that'll place you under commission matters, item 3 president's report and announcements. >> i have no official report

today. >> item 4, consideration of adoption of draft minutes, april 16, 2014. >> i have a question. for planning staff. we read sadly in the news about marcus books and i was wondering what the procedure was to -- or if there is a local ordinance for plaques. i know we need permission, but if there -- is there an ordinance on the record now that if a building is lands marked that there should be or has to be, shall be a plaque next to the building that the landmarked or -- can you shed some light on that? i'm not sure about that. >> sure. time fry, department staff. there's no directive or no specific criteria in our ordinance was a property is

locally designated to mandate a plaque, however, last fall we did have some extra money and we commissioned a graphic designer to design several options for plaques for landmark buildings and excuse me, the program's taken a while to figure out and we want to make sure it's not cost prohibitive to property owners. we're hoping to bring that to youson soon. certainly this property would be a great candidate for that and if you'd like we can share those designs with you. >> if you could, when you bring that back to us give us some suggestions or recommendations how we can institutionalize that. once a landmark is assigned a plaque be assigned pending owners permission. second question is about me's drive in. i think we received an email about that. can you give us information

about that? >> tim fry, department staff. i don't know too much other than what i saw on the paper and through the email, but can look into it. i believe a ppa was filed. i can look into what the ppa is outlining as the proposed project and get back to you at the next hearing. >> thank you. so we will go back to -- >> item 4, consideration of draft minutes, april 16, 2014. >> any corrections or comments? seeing none, any member of the public wish to comment on the draft meeting minutes? seeing none, close public comment and bring back to commission. >> i move to adopt the draft minutes. >> second. >> thank you. >> on that motion to adopt draft minutes for april 16, 2014. commissioner high land. >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman? >> yes. >> commissioner wol wol.

>> yes. >> commissioner haws. >> yes. >> this places you under item 5, comments and questions. >> commissioner jung. >> i'd like to bring up the question i raised a few meetings ago and that is about the pending sale of the the concordia club on van ness avenue. i'd like to get -- at least on the public record, for a notice to buyer or potential buyers, that this is a historic resource. well, the thing is i did look up -- i saw reference to it in the van ness district survey and i saw some other history on it, but wasn't able to pinpoint actually if it was ben fshlly on the list of resources. it would have been in 1909 and

at the concord ya club and it merged with the arginot in 1909 and the architecture is pretty out standing so significant, yeah, architect as well. i wonder if you could provide a report on that at our next meeting or whenever you have time as soon as you can. >> sure, happy to. >> thank you. commissioners agree. >> any other comments, questions? seeing none we'll move on. >> commissioners that places you under your regular calendar, item 6, case number 2013, at 648 request for major permit to alter. >> good afternoon commissioners. [inaudible] the project before you this afternoon is a major permit to alter request for a

property located at 650 howard street. the property is currently developed with a single story class mezzanine reenforced structure with a flat roof designated as cot gar five within the new montgomery constructed in 1923 the existing structure was constructed. it has been substantially altered in the past and is clad with marble tiles. the primary facade is three bays wide with two pairs of metal doors located within the outer bays. the center bay is [inaudible] and clad with mosaic tiles. wood canopy stands the length of the facade and terminated with the dome shaped awning at the entrance. existing signs of the building

exists above the [inaudible] exposed [inaudible]. the current request is for exterior alterations of the howard street primary facade. the scope of work includes the removal of the existing store front system including two pairs of double doors with side lights within the outer bays. the infield wall at the center base is supposed to be replaced with glazing to create a window box for signage at this location. the project also involves removal of the existing cladding materials and replacement with new clading materials with concrete dimensional tiles in dark granite and porcelain tile. the existing wood canopy will be replaced with three fabric awnings that fit within each bay opening and a new architectural element with

integrated led lighting will be installed at the cornice level. lastly the existing wall sign will be adjusted to be centrally located on a new bell course and the existing blade sign will be modified by removing the exposed lightbulbs and semicircular elements at the top and bottom of blade sign. the blade sign will be lowered approximately 2 feet on the facade. the project was reviewed on february 5, 2014. the arc provided comments and recommendations on the proposed project, including on its compatibility with the appendix f of article 11 in terms of the overall massing and composition, material and color detailing in ornamentation as well as on the proposed awning and modified signs. the arc recommended that the existing flat facade of the

building be articulated by way of using different materials and treatment on the facade. more specifically to create a two part composition by introducing a bell course and by extended an exfa sizing the existing bays by e extended the peers that xils at the lower level and extended them to the full height. in addition the arc also recommended providing additional glazing on the ground floor and adding windows above the entry doors. the arc also recommended that the use of the dimensional concrete tiles remain on the upper level while the dark porcelain material be used as act sent materials on the piers and bell course. the arc further recommended that the piers be detailed with a different treatment at the base to give them prom negligence. nans.

prominence. based on the review of the revised drawings and specifications the proposed project appears to meet the standards and provisions of appendix f of the article 11 for reasons rescribed in the draft approval motion included in your packet, including that the proposed project is limited to the exterior alteration including creation of new store front, signage and awning in a building facade that has been previously altered. that the proposed facade alteration will bring the previously altered facade closer to conformity with the district by using materials that are compatible with those in the district and that the proposed light colored concrete adding in conjunction with the dark finishes on the piers and bell course will provide further articulation on the facade.

based on these findings the department recommends approval of the project with the condition that attachment details for all new cladding material, including new metal architectural feature at the top, fabric awnings afterwards signage be submitted for review and approval by perez vagsz staff prior to approval of the building permit. this concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. commissioners, do we have in questions? staff and sponsor? commissioner jung. >> i just wanted to clarify the drawings that we received are dated january 2. the architectural review committee has met since then, made some changes to these drawings and there are revised drawings, but we don't have them, correct? >> actually this is revised drawings, the date has not been updated on the drawings. >> oh, they didn't update the date, but those are revised then? >> right.

>> okay, fine. >> it's noted up in the revision box. >> revision box. >> directly above right there. >> okay, i found it. >> commissioner pearlman. >> thank you. i did have one question. you mentioned that the canopies are fabric but then on the last page it says canopy material aluminum. i wanted clarity as to what the design was. >> you're referring to the case report or packet. >> this this package of drawings the canopies -- you said that it's fabric, but on this page it says canopy material, aluminum. >> that examples of existing canopy materials in the district that the project sponsor was using and initially aluminum canopy and awning was proposing drawing on the

existing aluminum canopies in the district. however, the awnings on the ground floor, when the base have been changed to fabric. the top portion still is aluminum. >> thanks. >> commissioners, any other questions? no. then we will take it to public comment. any member of the public wish to -- [inaudible]. if you have any questions the upon so sponsor is here. any member of the public wish to speak on this item. seeing none, close public comment and bring back to commission. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you. >> commissioners, on that motion to approve with conditions, commissioner highlands. >> yes. >> commissioner jung. >> mot mot. >> pearlman. >> haws. >> yes. >> the motion passes unanimously, six to zero and places you on item 7, design

guidelines work shon and discussion on the secretary of interior standards. >> good afternoon commissioners, tim fry department staff. before i introduce vince i wanted to make a couple quick comments. i wanted to welcome everything in the audience and commissioners here at planning staff is also in the audience eager to here the presentation and your comments and the public's comments. we are expecting supervisor wiener who wanted to make a few comments as a part of the presentation, but he's stuck in budget so as soon as he's able to, he'll be up here to join us . so right now i'd like to introduce you to vince michael. we asked him to provide backgrounds on secretary

secretary of interior standards. for their application to historic structures and districts within san francisco. so again, to introduce you to vince, he's the local director of the heritage fund in palo alto. he's the trustee for historic trust of preservation where he is the vice chair of the diversity task force. he was the director of the [inaudible] at the school of the art institute of chicago where he held the john h brine charn in historic preservation. he's the author of architecture of barry burn taking the prairie school to europe and

various travel guides and over 400 blog posts since 2005. with that, i'll hands it over to vince and we look forward to hearing from all of you. >> before you started, just for -- go to the public, is mr. michael will go through some presentation and we're going to stop four or five times throughout the presentation for -- we'll go commission comments and public comment so everyone will get a chance to speak multiple times throughout the presentation. don't have to, but -- anyways, we'll have ample opportunity to go through this. i want to make sure everyone understands we're not trying to come to answers today. we're going to review and look at where we're going. this process will take a year roughly and planning staff will come to us in the fall, start with a schedule of how this will unravel and sum it up. thank you mr. michael. >> thank you. very pleased to be here.

thank you everyone in the public audience. my goal is to give you sort of a background on what the secretary of the interior standards are, how they fit into a discussion of design guidelines. we are -- i do have a little bit of a stretch on the screen so we'll have to compensate for that. i think what i'll do with the chairman's permission is go through a little bit of the history of why we have these standards and then i'll stop at that point and then maybe start again going through the individual standards and how they've evolved over time. what i'd first like to do is set up what i have traditionally viewed as how preservation works so i think there's tendency to focus too much on purely visual formal elements and forget about the process, which of course this commission and others are

intimately engaged in. the way we approach the preservation of historic structures has evolved over the years. it starts back in the 1930s with various international charters. those changed a lot in the 1990s and i think the secretary of interior standards which were also modified in the early 90s have reflected some of that change and that reflects both an understanding that the resources we're looking at are not purely architectural. they also reflect the history of the community, reflect the traditions of the community and so the question become how do you do that? in international practice, which i'm very involved in, we follow the charter, 1999, which really states that preservation is not one set of guidelines, but if fact sort of culturely specific so in that context i applaud this commission and the city in going through this yearlong process because the

point is you have to develop a context that's specific to the place. the specific formal guidelines of one place do not work in another place. they have to be developed within that historic context. this comes to the idea that preservation is not embodied in a set of standards, but in a process. that process begins with identification, what is important, what is historic, what is worth saving. that's a community process that involves all stakeholders. the second step is then to evaluate what is the level of significance of these resources, is something so significant that it should be preserved in its own situation, is something a collection of resources that need to be preserved for example as a street scape? third step is registration and this is all in the national historic preservation act and it's the background to the guidelines. registration is what we'd call listing or lands marking and the final step is treatment and i think that's what the objective and this commission

and everyone has in looking at how guidelines are applied, how do we treat these properties, how do we do the review that you just did for the howard street property. it's important to remember that process we go through and indeed, why we have the secretary of the interior standards is because of a review process that was sets up in 1966 with the passage of the national historic preservation act. this act initially required the federal government to review all federally funded projects, things like high woois and so forth and they needed some standards for that review. a classic example besides highways would include things like military bases. this is a national historic lands mark that went through an elaborate process.

similar example here is the presidio, but it had an exemption. secondly we have standards because since 1976 we have had some form of rehab tax credits that have taken place. there was a property in palo alg alto that was a tax credit. these require some form of historic preservation office so that's why we have the standards. i was asked to take a look at where preservation fits into your city's larger remit. the thing i draw your attention to, and it's going to be in the next slide as well is on the right we have the secretary of interior standard.

they are regulatory, but the standards themselves as we'll see shortly are just ten standards. they don't have reenforcement for them. they can be interpreted in different ways. you see underneath interpreting, that's where guidelines come in. guidelines are generally not regulatory, they're divided into categories of recommended and not recommended. you have here specifically within the san francisco context, articles ten and 11, which are regulatory, regulatory design guidelines, planning guidelines and the general city plan. the secretary of standards exists for four different kind of streements. treatments. we talk about the secretary of interior standards for rehab. those are the ones used for

section 106 review, they're the ones used for tax credit projects but also three other sets for standards for preservation, restoration and reconstruction. it's important to understand that the basic regulatory guidelines out there are for rehab. how do you make rebuilding sielt structure landscape useful going forward as opposed to restoring something as a museum, preserving something as a ruin or reconstructing something. the standards are regulatory, but the guidelines are not and i think that's an important distinction. the secretary of the interior standards has published sets of guidelines for years and they're divided into ded into r not recommended. obvious example would be sandblasting a brick building is not recommended. but they don't work the same. so let me quickly go through the guidelinens and i think we'll stop at that point and answer questions from the commission and the public. so there are ten standards, the

first is that a property shall be used for its historic purpose or new use that requires minimal change. the important thing that requires your attention there is defining characteristics. usually when dealing with historic landmarks you're dealing with features to the public. it encourages you not to remove historic materials -- i'll give

you example later of how standard 3 and 9 comes into conflict. standard 3 warns against creating a false sense of historical features. this was somewhat common in the 1970s and 80s as people would want to make something grander than it was, more historic than it was. and then four also relates to that. properties change over time and some of those changes require historic significance. the example at the bottom is 2120 south michigan avenue which was records and the top of the building is 1911 and the historic significance of the property is 1957 when records is there so that's an example of the change that required historic significance in its own right. standards five and six,

basically direct people to document what they're doing when they're dealing with the property so five distinctive features or examples of craftsmanship shall be preserved and then it goes into surface cleaning. and then six, historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. this is one that has caused confusion over time. it says severity of [inaudible] match the old in design color temperature and design color qualities. the example of this is the replacement window. and the real question is, again, a process question. the question isn't what type of window should i replace it with. the question is do i need to replace the window, is it severely deteriorated as standard six say