>> good afternoon, commissioners, tim fry, department staff. a couple of items to share with you this afternoon. first is in regards to the interim controls for office buildings in pdr districts this was legislation sponsored by cohen that went into effect on july 15 and for the purposes of the interim controls, conversion of a landmark building to an office use in a pdr use is subject to 18 months to continual use and authorization from the planning commission. and in addition to that, supervisor cohen also introduced legislation on july 29th, to amend the planning code to place vertical controls on office conversion in landmark buildings and pdr districts. this means that the new controls will dictate how many floors can actually be converted to office and a slightly more stricter control than what is currently in the planning code. we will bring this proposed

code amendments for your review and comment prior to the board of supervisor's hearing and at the last hearing, the hpc requested that we calendar a more robust discussion on the obligation of the criteria or the lack of criteria, and so we are going to calendar the discussion, along with the review of those proposed amendments at the same hearing, so we can have a much broader conversation about both of those topics. second item that i wanted to share with you as you are probably aware there was a fire on monday at the hotel and the hpc approved a major permit to alter for the rehabilitation for this year and the project being reviewed by the national park service for tax credit purposes and there is a crew, working around the clock to pump water out of the building and tablize the site we have been in contact with the property owners and as you may have seen in the paper, the architect did mention a lot of the finishes within the lobby

appear to be in okay condition so that is good news and we will keep you posted on any additional repairs that may be required, as a result of the fire. third, item, on monday, tina and i attended the historic preservation fund meeting where kerri and cindy from the california office of historic preservation discussed statements and surveys and the methodology behind those types of documents and data collection, and the committee had a number of questions regarding the ohp's review of the historic context statements and survey and the city or the department's obligations under the certificated local government status and i had to leave that discussion early, but i have been in contact with the mayor's office and the fund committee to see if there was any sort of action items or resolution at the end of that discussion and i will certainly

share those with you once i have them. just to give you some background, the primary request for this discussion came from the fund committee, a couple of years ago after the mission survey adoption, where there was a discrepancy between the city staff's recommendation and what the commission adopted. and then, the ohp also had some additional concerns. and so the fund committee wanted to get a better understanding of how each of the bodies was reviewing the survey findings and how we can improve the coordination in the future. >> if there are any action items i will let you know in the next hearing. >> also at the last hearing, the historic preservation commission, requested a status report on the results of your budget requests and the staff allocation and we are going to have a report at the next hearing on august 20th and go

into more detail about the approved budget as it relates to the hpc. and then this past month i was on the east coast for two events, that i wanted just to quickly mention to you. one i was at the national alliance of preservation commission forum in philadelphia and it was a great opportunity for professionals in all areas of government, either state, local or federal level to share to network and to share, stories and discuss the topics and issues that were relevant to their cities, and as we have seen in other preservation conferences this year i think that there is an ongoing trend with the sorts of things that we are talking about how to produce the surveys efficiently and how to recognize the social and cultural heritage and how to expand the notion of how the preservation means and also at

the state and federal levels and i am going to share some of the things that i have learned at that conference with you at a future date, but in addition, last week, along with the handful of other local government representatives i was invited to attend a training on the federal rehabilitation tax credit program and it was helpful to gain a better understanding but also how we as a city and as a commission can help to promote and facilitate use of that and it is certainly timely considering we are at the verge of adopting or the state on the merge of adopting a state historic tax credit and so those certainly will be used in conjunction in the future, and learned a lot about some of the pitfalls that some of states have with having a state credit and a federal credit and hopefully we can learn from some of those experiences. and making sure that our own tax credits work efficiently. but again, i am happy to

provide the hpc or the public with the additional information on either event. and so that is a way to brain storm the improvements for our own program and i also want to mention kelley, and i am happy to announce that kelley wo ng accepted a position as a preservation planning on the code enforcement team and this was part of last year's budget and kelley was previously was a planner on the north east team and now moving to code enforcement and as was still working out the details of that position, and it is duties and responsibilities the over all intent is to provide applicants with more technical services and in particular, providing some expertise after permits have been issued or the cvas have been issued to help the applicants achieve the approval. but you will likely see her in the future but this new

capacity and we will keep you abreast of her backfill, once the hiring process begins. and then finally, in response to public comment, i just want to mention to you that the gold berg building along with two other buildings that have recently been requested for landmark designation by the public will be brought to you at your next hearing. just for discussion of the information that we have received to date, whether or not they should be included on the work program, and over all process. and we are preparing the notification for the property owners and tenants at this time. so once the notice and everybody has been properly noticed we will have it on the 20th hearing and we will prepare a packet for you, and your next hpc packet. based on the information that we have received to date. >> so that concludes my comments, and if you have any questions, happy to answer them at this time, thank you. >> one more question on the pdr

on a future date, any ideas? >> i don't know exactly when the legislation will be referred to us, because the board is in recess right now. in talking to the city trainer office we think that it will be early september. >> okay. >> maybe the first hearing or the third hearing in september is what we are aiming for right now. >> terrific thank you. >> i was interested tim in your discussion of the meeting for the historic fund committee. the discrepancy, i mean, what spured the topic, of discussion at the meeting was apparently the discrepancy between your evaluation of some aspect of mission delores and how shipo was looking at that and i was curious to know if it was substantive just in general terms and can you comment on that. >> sure, the mission, association, commission, to

survey, of the mission delores neighborhood and the staff raised the concerns about the number of non-contributers that were included in the district and it was one very large district that was identified and we also thought that based on the themes identified in the historic context statement that there may be several districts rather than one large encompassing district and that is something that we brought to the commission at that time a number of years ago. and there was some disagreement about that, or what the district boundaries should be and what was the appropriate ratio from contributers to non-contributers, they said that we don't agree with either side but more work should be done because there is clearly something of significance there and so at this time, the community has hired katherine petrin to complete a national register nomination that will thoroughly evaluate where the district boundaries lie justifying those boundaries but

also the ratio of contributers and non-contributers and we hope at that time we will have more solid footing to provide a positive recommendation. >> thank you. >> and last, one is on kelley's new position, and what are we calling that position? >> she will still be considered a historic preservation technical specialist but the job duties will lie with the code enforcement and zoning team and so she will be working on any code enforcement issues whether a member of the public calls and believes, you know, windows have been installed without a permit or not in compliance with the staff or commission's approval. but there certainly is an opportunity for us to expand or look at other ways that she can fulfill the duties or of this commission. >> we have the new conditions of approval saying that we are going to have staff go out and confirm before occupancy. >> correct. >> is kelley going to handle

that capacity? is that her... >> hopefully. we have not gotten to the point. we have implemented site visits as part of conditions of approval for some time now and it has been occurring or as-needed basis by the staff planner and makes perfect sense to have kelley accompany that planner to make sure that the work is being completed according to the conditions. >> on those checks, and occupancy time, we will have the planner from the project go out and maybe kelley will assist? >> the site visits are not always occurring at the very end. sometimes they are occurring at the various milestones if we have to see a window mockup or a repair example. that is usually when the planners are out there in terms of coordinating with dbi and getting out there before the occupancy is issued, we are certainly opened to doing that and i think that we need to

have a bigger conversation with dbi first. we occasionally do it, but, to be honest it has to and it usually happens with much larger projects, like downtown projects that have a long laundry list of approval. >> it is a hired consultant that we check in or something like that. >> exactly. >> it makes sense to do it as part of any c, of a and as we do it on a regular basis already. >> thank you, any other questions for mr. fry? >> seeing none we will move on. commissioners that will place you under the commission matters item three, president report and announcements. >> no report or announcements. >> item four, consideration of adoption draft minutes for the arc on july 16, and the regular hearing for july 16, 2014, i will point out one correction that was pointed out to me by the city attorney's office that karagin and the haden building

was misspelled and will be corrected on page 2 of the regular hearing minutes. >> commissioners and apc members, any comments or corrections? >> yeah, i am fine with the arc minutes, and one question and one correction, on the hpc minutes. under item two, bullet two, about to henry adams. we talked about a land use committee hearing, july 7th, is that the correct date? could we just check and make sure that that was the correct date? >> under that first bullet? >> yeah, under two. >> i will look into that date. >> it is a monday that is when they have the land use. >> was it after or before. >> it was prior. >> okay that is finally fine then. under six, the disclosures if we could change under my disclosure from last time,

element if you could spell out architectural group, in lieu of by his firm? >> certainly. >> great. >> thanks. >> commissioners? any other comments or corrections? >> and any member of the public wish to make a comment, correction on the either minute? seeing none we will close public comment and bring it back to the board. >> i move to adopt the minutes of the meetings on the 16th. >> i second. >> okay. >> on that motion, then commissions to adopt the meeting minutes for july 16, 2014, as corrected and amended, commissioner highland? >> yes, jonnck, yes. >> pearlman. >> yes. >> and... i >> i have did one announcement. >> yes, if i could go back, the realtor program went through

the first group of 50, pacific union was the company, they sold like literally the first day that they announced it they have 100 more to put there. >> there is nothing further we can move on to item 5, commission comments and questions. >> commissioners? johns? >> i don't know whether i should call her commission johnck but she has been teaching a class at the university of berkeley and the particular subject that was discussed when i attended out in the marshes, i guess was two weeks ago, where it was the history and the development and i guess that you could call it

the restoration of the salt ponds. and that commission professor has written an extraordinarily interesting article on the history and the development of salt and salt production in the san francisco bay explains among other things the movers and shakers behind it. the historic events in alaska, and in nevada that precipitated the development of it. and so i suggest that if anybody is interested, they could perhaps ask the commissioner to send them a copy of the article. but it is just extraordinarily interesting. >> thank you. >> commissioners any other comments? disclosures sha that we need? >> i recently took my class on a field trip out there and it

is a fascinating piece of history. so i am happy to send it around, it is in california history, summer issue. but any way, i do have question, i note that on september 3rd, which is our next meeting, that there are no items on the calendar. and i would request consideration or of a cancelation or if there are items then that we should know about them or how do you want to handle? >> i think that we have one more meeting before then? snement correct. >> right. >> let's take it up at the next meeting. >> yeah. >> i think that is good and we can get an update from staff. >> okay. >> terrific. >> thank you for pointing that out. >> commissioners anything else? >> seeing nothing we will move on. >> commissioners that will place you under your consideration of items proposed

for continuance item 6, 2014.0448 h, a continuance to august 20, 2014, as well as your rules and regulations consideration of adoption are also proposed for continuance to august 20, 2014. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> do we have any discussion among the commissioners? >> i think that it will be a good idea. >> thank you. >> any member of the public wish to speak on these continuance items? >> seeing none we will close public comment and bring it back. >> i move to continue. >> second. >> moved and seconded thank you. >> on that motion to continue item 6 and 7 to august, 20, commissioner highland? >> yes. >> johnck, yes. >> johns. >> yes. >> matsuda. >> yes. >> wolfram. >> yes. >> hasz. >> yes. >> and it places you under your

regular calendar for case number, 2014.0359. 201 buchanan street, request for appropriateness. >> good afternoon, the house is landmark 47 on the west side of the street between lasat and waler streets. the east lake style residence was built in 1882 by john nighting dale senior. and the property is subject to a mills act property contract approved in 2013, and i have attached the associated rehabilitation and maintenance plans and they are on the way with the project and if you have not had a chance to walk by the house it is looking fantastic. and the photographs in the case report reflects some of that work. the proposed project, calls for a construction of a concrete stair and a trash bin storage area at the south west corner of the property and alteration

of the non-historic sun room attached at the rear wall of the historic residence, the stair construction will include cutting and opening the existing concrete retaining wall removing a three foot wide section of the historic railing and installing a new gate and safety railings along the top of the new stairwell, the gate and railings will replicate the design and however have a smooth finish which will distinguish them from the historic weather worn rod irand. replacing the window and skylights, the sun room is not visible from the public right-of-way and the upgrade will require that a fire proof para pit is installed along the property lines and however you will see in the conditions of approval we plan to work with dbi to lower that as much as possible. like i said the property is

subject to the mills act property contract. and with that i would like to go to our findings. you may have noticed a slipped up, there is a typo in the findings referred to the alamo landmark, it is from an old template, but this findings do reflect this project and the nighting gale house. we have found that the proposed stair will provide safe entry and egress from the basement level without compromising the historic character of the sight. the stair will be located at the fornorthwest that is formally distanced from the historic home and that stair will be constructed of concrete and material that is used for the historic retaining wall and however it will have minimal detailing. and the new iron railing and gate will largely match the design of the historic iron railing as to not to introduce a new and distracting element

and however they will be differentiated from the original railing and due to the modern finish and the trash bins will be located in the side wall of the stair so that it does not have a prominent presence when viewed from the street, the door will be wood to match the material of the doors on the property, however it will be designed on a simple manner. for the regarding the proposed sun room, the sun room is a later edition which has no architectural significance and the alterations will improve the compatibility of the feature with the character of the building and the work will replace aluminum doors, with the light and doors, and the framing will be compatible with the building without mimicking the original building, the pyramid skylights will be replaced with a lantern shaped

skylights that relates better to the facade beyond it. as i spoke of before, the renovation of the sun room does trigger the need for a fire proofing para pit wall along the property line and we plan to work with dbi to minimize the height of that as much as possible. if you have any questions, i am available and the project sponsors are here to give you a brief presentation. >> thank you. >> this is my husband and co-restorer and over here we have lito who is our contractor. and just very briefly we wanted to give you an update on where

we are at. this is the house in 2010 and, we have completely restored the woodwork and put on a new roof. >> this small, shaded highlighted part shows the pyramids that we were talking about that is with the building that we wanted to replace.

the neighbor loves the idea and wrote us an e-mail saying, yes, please do it. >> let's see. and then, this is another shot of the house as it is currently. this is the house as it is currently. and i think that is all that i wanted to show you. oh, okay, so there is exterior easement on the house by san francisco architectural heritage and so they have a say as to whatever happens to the outside of the house so we contacted them about a year ago. and their response was the retaining wall is not part of the historic feature, that is in their mandate and so they have no reason to be against it. and that e-mail i believe is included in your materials. >> it is not.

>> it is not, okay? i can leave you a copy. >> we made you a packet. >> okay. >> and then also, from there is a tenant in the lower unit and he is very prothe project as well, because this way, he will have a staircase and a trash bin rather than having to come around to the front of the house which is a kind of odd narrow passage way with a very low fence, it is only about this high. so if you follow over you are going to if the spikes don't get you the sidewalk will. and so this we are hoping is going to ease some of that so if you have any questions, let us know and thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> commissioners any questions, staff or sponsors? >> no? >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and any member of the public

wish to speak on this item? >> thank you. >> my name is jim warshall and i am here to some extent both from the perspective of san francisco victor an alee ans preservation committee and also from the neighborhood association and transportation and planning. this project has been a joy to witness, you know, what they have done. and everything about the quality the high degree of research, and excellence speaks to exactly what we have loved to see everybody doing. even here today, when presented with the minor alteration to the iron work, that you are opting for a very subtle handling speaks well to what we are always talking about of

good context and subtlety while having enough distinction so there can't be confusion. and so from every point of view, we really welcome everything that has been done so far to the historic portion of this building. and fully support the changes proposed. we agree that there is nothing about the addition that would be obtrusive in what they are proposing so it is really a pleasure to commend the excellent work of these talented and committed preservationists. >> any other member of the public wish to speak? >> good afternoon. >> my name is ell murray.

>> and i am his neighbor. i live down the street and i have for a quarter of a century. and i think that the work that they have done to this house is extraordinary and it looks wonderful and it has been a pleasure to see, someone have a great deal of concern for a piece of property. but i disagree with everything that everyone has said about the concrete wall. this home is 132 years old. that wall is 132 years old. would you cut down a tree if it was in good condition in 132 years old? i don't think so. especially if it was only for a trash can. now, you can talk to them about what they think, but as far as i am concerned, after living in this neighborhood for a long period of time, it would be a shame to change any of the facade of this structure as far as the other items that they wish to repair in the back of the house i am all for it. i think that that is a great idea. but to cut into this wall i think is a bad idea.

i think that we should preserve things and that is what your commission is about, preservation and this is your opportunity to preserve that retaining wall. okay. thank you very much. >> any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> seeing none, we will close the public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> commissioners? comments? >> i will say right off of the bat that i have been by the house a couple of times and they are doing a stunning job. and they are model stewarts of one of our finer buildings in san francisco. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i did want to comment on the last speaker. you know, a tree that is 130 years old we would trim. we are not living in the 19th century. and this seems like an extremely modest and slight alteration to a few