for concept proposal, the staff did a great job of creating what was a culmination of two very detailed committee meetings, advisory committee meeting and captured all of those concepts and learning in a past project of this area, i want to make sure we reach out to those communities and neighborhood groups who have raised concerns on past park projects. >> absolutely commissioner, low. i have a pretty robust kind of community outreach list. i have kept them in the loop even with the interim tennants i have invited them to the community meetings and commission meetings and i have invited them to hear presentations similar to what i gave you today late last month. we'll continue to engage those groups with recommendations from supervisor ferrel's office. >> as long as we keep that

transparency going, that will be important in future selection of ultimate operator for the palace. >> i agree. >> seeing no other comments, cassandra let me congratulate you and the staff on the collateral material. i think it's a very first class for a very important process. i thank you for the extensive community outreach elements for this program. this is probably once in a lifetime opportunity inform that kind of investment to be given by a long term tenant. no other comments? yes? >> a note. we got the general thematic scope of kinds of vechlts. investments. is there a ballpark of what that potentially means? >> we actually have it

partitioned out between if you invest in the entire building or just the old exploratoria side. we want to make sure that it's a viable theatre option comes forward that they are able to come to this sight or partner with another organization. our requirement is that the building has the improvements that we are looking for. it's a low end of $8 million investment and goes up to about $15 million. those figures were based in 2012. i can imagine they have risen and do not include soft cost and other improvements. >> we can entertain a motion to authorize the general manager to proceed. >> so moved. >> second.

>> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> thank you. >> we are on item 9. is is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we are on item 10. commissioners matters. >> don't see any. >> item 10 is closed. item 11, agenda setting? none. item 12. communication. nothing. item 13, adjournment. >> so moved. >> second. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> thanks for coming out. we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

the historic preservation. >> good afternoon and welcome to the historic preservation hearing for wednesday september 17, 2014. the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outburst of any kind. please silence any mobile devices. when you do come to speak, please state your name. >> wolfram, hyland, johnck and john's all pearlman. >> this is general public comment.

except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your time already afforded. in the meeting you have up to 3 minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, any member of the public wish to speak, come to the mic please. >> good afternoon commission and directors. i'm here with my next door neighbor and friend jackie nay lor. i would like to update you on our project. we are still in the building. we are very excited as you know, we were here last month with our architectural historian ed yarbrough. he is working on his report

for you. as you know we together and goldberg's granddaughter participate for our report. i don't this it will be too much longer. so with that, we just want to take a few minutes during public comment and update you with some research that we have. ed is working hard on this report and the thing that i'm most excited about, are the publications. we are going to show you three small pieces of research that we thought you would be interested in. the page in the back is the november 10th , 1910, that had the architectural building in it and you can see where goldberg bought the property for the house and the industrial news that shows

the finishing of the building in 1911 and the other piece is really exciting. i will turn this over to jackie. thank you so much. i will give to your clerk. >> i won't go too long. we were very excited as beverly said to have some pieces of the report with us that's in progress. and you will see at the top page of the package that she stapled together shows goldberg's signature for the building. me must have cared a great deal about this building, because not only did he carve his name, but he also hung onto the building until 1972 when it was willed to his two sons george and thomas. the billion did stay in -- building did stay in the family.

beverly and i consider ourselves historians to this building. we realize that there is absolutely no way that landmarking influences in anyway. we do feel like we want to spend our time there helping to preserve this building and move things along as quickly as we can while we can continue to protect it. you may recall at the last meeting the owner did send a message that he would prefer the building not to be landmarked. we are not quite sure what his intentions are but not towards preservation. we are asking that you can add the building quickly to your work program and prioritize it and i just whale rant -- really want to thank you so much for your consideration. >> do you have any questions? thank you. >> any other member wish to speak on an item that is not on the agenda. seeing none, we'll close

public complent. city clerk: commissioners that will place you on department matters directors report. >> good afternoon, department staff. directors report was included in your packet. i'm happy to respond to any questions or comments. >> seeing no questions or comments, item 2. city clerk: staff report and announcements. >> commissioners again, tim fry, department staff. a few items to share with you. one item from the board of appeals. neighbors raising concern over a roof deck over a non-contributing building to the industry which you all probably remember. it was appealed to the board of appeals. they were appealing the department's approval of the building permit application. as you recall the process for admin and your january 15th hearing, the

appellants requested a full hearing on that item. they determined at the time the staff was in full compliance of a delegation and decided not to hear the item. the appellants appealed the building permit application and the building department denied that and by planning staff what they thought was frivolous obstruction from the process. that decision was upheld. i have one item from the planning commission to report to you. last week at the planning commission, they approved with a 5-1 vote a conditional use authorization and office allocation for 660, third street. this is the item that the commission, hpc provided review and comment which is a contributor to the south

land market district and the property was utilizing 83.9 of the planning code for the office conversion. the planning commission allocated change of use for $40,000 gross square feet of pdr to office. this is a reduction or about half of the amount originally requested, the project applicant was requesting 80,000 gross square feet. they did reduce the amount requested. the department has agreed to a department maintenance plan and we worked closely on that maintenance plan of requesting distributor on the landmark district. and we'll have a couple items regarding 83.9 on your calendar later this afternoon so it will include a more robust discussion and if you have any questions at that time.

the vote was 5-1. supervisor fong was absent and commissioner moore voted against. last night, we held our civic center cultural land is survey committee meeting at the library. a number of stakeholders attend which was a great way to get everybody who is affected by changes in the civic center together to start talking about all the fantastic pipeline projects and the architectural review committee just met regarding the design that runs through the civic center landmark district. we had reps from the asian art museum, civic center, cbd and advisory committees and commissioner johnck was there and some

stakeholders about their excitement about the project and also their concerns about issues we need to address upfront. just as a reminder we included the sik civic center cultural landscape to give you more time to review that than we normally would require for a packet just because it is a fairly detailed and lengthy is survey. we will bring the inventory to you for adoption at your next hearing on october 1st 1st.. we figured we would give you time for any findings. the last public outreach, i wanted to thank you for attending but also wanted to share with the public a draft preparation for the house. thank you for the participation. it added and sort of heightened the

attendance and the amount of great input that we received because of your participation. it was at the old mint. we had about 50 folks in attendance along with other guest. as shelley kalt droneey said there wasn't a quiet moment in the room and that's how involved and engaged the people are and after the decades, it's finally moving along. we got e-mails and suggestions with comments and we'll naturally share those with you when we bring the element back to you hopefully this winter. i did want to point out a couple of organizations that did attend and we are grateful for their contributions to making the preservation element the best document it can be.

we had victoria lines, neighborhood sougs, balboa terrace association and press acid i don't see trust and around preservation and design firms in the bay area who attended and provided great feedback. if you have any questions, i'm happy to follow up with you if you are curious about any of the comments that we are receiving while we are drafting or revising the document based on hearings this summer. finally, i just wanted to mention at our last hearing we mentioned bringing to this hearing reprioritization, some reporting mechanisms that the department can provide regarding your program. we had our regular monthly meeting with has haas' because it

will give more response and we'll be able to have more robust discussion at that time. we haven't forgotten but we are in the process of preparing more material for you so we can have a length ier discussion of where to move the program next year. that concludes my comments and happy to answer any questions. >> i see no questions or comments. city clerk: commissioners, this places you on item 3, report or announcements. >> i have no announcement. >> item 4. consideration of dochlths draft minutes for arc august 20, 2014. draft minutes for hpc august 20, 2014. >> for the regular meeting we can

strikeout commissioner hyland disclosed his firm. we can strikeout his firm and the arc meeting this is just a question whether we didn't get a chance to speak before the meeting but on the concurrence of the department's recommendation at the scale of the building on 20th street be furthered study. i was the only one that thought it should be. that the ground floor should be studied but you are okay with the massing. >> sorry, commissioners, that last comment or question? >> so under the comments under pearlman. concurrence that the department needs further study i was talking about the 20th street facade massing. i don't think that was accurate. >> we'll look into that and make the correction. >> thank you. >> commissioner wolfram?

>> on the regular meeting i have one correction under disclosures item 4. yamey, he's no longer with the mayor's office. the second item under disclosures. >> indeed, thank you. >> and seeing no other comments or questions, we'll open to the public. anyone from the public wish to comment on the minutes? >> i move to approve as noted. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes as corrected. commissioner john's, pearlman, wolf ran, johnck, president haas. that places you on item 5. commission comments and

questions. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i wanted to discuss item 12. i had a number of conversations with supervisor cohen's office and planning commission and one other person who was just a person in the public. that's it. >> and i spoke to supervisor chiu regarding a letter that i'm about to distribute concerning pine street. 15127 pine. nothing else. city clerk: item 6 president appointment of subcommittee members for cultural heritage assets. >> we spoke on this and i thought it would be a good idea that we form a subcommittee from this

commission first before we reach out to outside public members so we can better define what allotment it would be and what we are asking from them in the direction we are going. commissioner hyland and matsuda are both willing to serve on this committee. so i would like to appoint both of them, if we have a third person from the commission we could otherwise we can leave it to hyland and matsuda. okay. that's what we'll do. if we could, our second meeting in october to come back with an outline? okay. we can agendaize that. thank you. cl eric clerk commissioners if there is not further item 7 historic preservation commission will consider draft language for a letter

for the planning commission regarding proposed project at 1527 pine street case no. 2008. >> we support the certification of the eir. if the developer could work the facade into the final project. that's basically what this is is just summarizing. i will say we had a discussion our environmental review officer because there was a misinterpret taegs by the developer about what the demolition meant and demolition of a certain part of the building, how far we would like to see a partial saving of this brick facade but it's still considered a demolition. what we are doing internally

is draft an outline at time of, at what point are we implementing this. >> commissioners, department staff, tim frye. what we discussed with the e ro is to help prepare this commission help with guidelines to developing preservation alternatives for eir's and we'll have a draft first and then discussion at another hearing. >> this stems from previous frustration from different projects of not getting enough options and even if it's a minimal option of preservation, we would like to see that and let the sponsors know it's okay sometimes to propose. that's where we are at and i just wanted to see the letter. do we have consensus on the letter? yes? >> yes. basically i had a question on

what tim just said. did we consider, when you talk about some guidelines for eir's, did we talk about that much in the preservation element in the objectives? i don't know. that might be an option? >> that's a good question. let's go -- we'll go investigate. but that's a great point. >> yeah, that's a great opportunity. rhetorical just to think about it. >> thank you, no more comments we'll move on. >> very good, commissioners. that will place you on consent calendars all matters are considered to be routine by the historic preservation and maybe acted by a single roll call. there will be no discussion of these items unless it is requested and as such the matter shall be removed from

the calendar. item 8, item 8: 2014.0412a d. vu; 4155 575-91200 79 fair oaks street, east side between 21st and 22nd streets; assessor's block 3618, lot 090. request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a 14'-2" x 3'-6" rear side addition, enlarge an exterior door and window opening at the rear façade of the ground floor, add two new window openings at the south façade of the ground floor, and expansion of the double doors at the rear façade of the second floor of the existing two-family dwelling. the subject property is a contributing resource to the liberty-hill historic district and is located within a rh-3 residential-house, three-familyy zoning district with 40-x height and bulk limit. 1234, item 9. item 9: 2014.0626a d. vu; 4155 575-91200 376 lexington, west side between 20th and 21st streets; assessor's block 3609, lot 060. request for a certificate of appropriateness to reconstruct the rearmost portion of the first story including the enlargement and conversion of a sliding window to two hung windows, construct a 2' x 9' rear addition and 6'-6" x 9' rear deck including the addition of two new windows along the south elevation and conversion of a window to a door at the rear elevation, and extend the pitched roof over the new addition to replace the existing shed roof of the existing single-family dwelling. the subject property is an eligible individual and contributing resource to the liberty-hill historic district and is

located within the rto-m residential, transit-oriented - missionn zoning district with 40-x height and bulk limit. sf 91234 also a request for a certificate of appropriateness. i have no speaker cards. >> commissioners, do any of you wish to pull either project off consent? seeing none. any member of the public wish to pull a project off consent? seeing none. seeking approval. >> i move to approve the calendar. >> on that motion, commissioner hyland, johnck, commissioner johnson, pearlman, wolfram and has. that points you to item 10. item 10: 2014.0677a s. caltagirone; 4155 558-66255 1164 fulton street, north side between scott and pierce streets. assessor's block 0777, lot 011. request for certificate of appropriateness to 11 add an elevator penthouse at the roof level; 22 infill the northeast corner of the third floor; 33 replace the wood cladding and mostly non-historic windows at the rear facade with glass panels shaded by aluminum screens. the rear facade would be composed of both fixed and sliding windows and screens. none of the alterations would be visible from the public right-of-way. the subject property is located within the alamo square landmark district; a rh-3 residential, house, three-familyy and 40-x height and bulk district. sf 101234 sf gov tv will turn it on. >> you may recognize this project. it was before you several months ago. fulton street is a non-contributor status is due to the alterations which you can see on the existing condition on the right. the proposal that you looked at previously was actually to restore the front facade using historic photo evidence as well as evidence found in the building. the project sponsor is under way with restorative

work. we have done several site visits to explore the shingles have been removed. it's not completed yet but they are on their way and very much in compliance with conditions of approval for the restoration project. the project today is to look at proposals for alterations to the rear of the building as well as to add an vat elevator penthouse to the roof. with the slightly different programming chosen for the building, they would like to construct an elevator penthouse as well. you will see in the design, the elevator penthouse is not visible from the public right-of-way neither the facade of the building. the facade is to remove all the existing cladding and the

existing windows and replace them with metal and glass screen system. this is not from the public right-of-way. it's a fairly similar treatment to the rear facades of the new proposed buildings for diner street which were approved buy a year or two ago and that is an appropriate treatment for the building. it's a non-contributor to the district. we have the conditions that the existing conditional for the approval for the restoration are maintained. so i hope that is not confusing. if you have any questions, please let me know. i'm going to pass it to the architect to walk through the designs with you.

emily goesen, project applicant. i'm going to show you through the rear facade and had shelley discovered a good amount of physical evidence which we are really excited about to have a lot of confidence to taking the front facade back to something we can safely assume that is original. the rear facade we are after developing the interiors and the programs for the project, we have a strong desire to bring as much daylight into the middle of the house as we can and so we are expanding the amount of glazing there but we also have a strong concern not only the privacy of the residents and the neighbors, but you will see a screening is a way of

mitigating that. first i will show you the existing conditions of the building from the monitor. you can see on the left here these are the few remaining double hung windows that are historic, otherwise those are alterations over the year and they are pretty bad just in general. it's a little bit hard to see. basically you can see that it's just a -- so it's a regular