presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is alicia skaggs we've been working with the planning department since may of last year and we've also had several meetings with the telegraph hill dwellers and have addressed all their comments and concerns. 25 alta is located in the telegraph hill district. the residence was constructed as a two story residence in 1876 and is attributed to henry smith.

character defining properties for the property include the italianate style, the double hung windows, the simple cornice at the top and also the wood siding. this slide shows the existing condition of the house. previous alterations include the ai dition of a picture window, a front door at the first level, a garage door and a door at the basement. there's also a shed that kelly mentioned in the back yard that's not historic. the proposed project includes the removal of previous non-historic alterations at the front facade, also the addition of new windows and doors that are compatible with the historic character of the property, repairs to deteriorated material, compatible addition at the rear side of the property and also the removal of the non-historic shed at the back yard.

this plot plan shows the removal of the non-historic shed which is located, i'm not sure whether there's a mouse -- you can see it on the right side at the back of the property and then the right image shows a plot plan that's proposed and it shows the additions. as a street facade we propose to remove non-historic alterations and replace with new windows that are compatible with the historic features of the house. all openings will be aligned with the existing fenestration pattern of the building. we're also considering two different options for the hood of the middle window at the second floor. in this option the decorative hood matches the other windows. originally there was a door at the location of the middle window.

we've been working with planning and they recommend that we reconstruct the hood to match the hood above the old door that existed there based on scaring on the building. we think that both options are compatible. the project sponsor and also the telegraph hill dwellers prefer the first option. the addition at the back of the house will include new doors and window that is have a balanced organization, trim detail will be simplified to distinguish it from the historic fabric. this section, you can see the roof deck that will provide an amenity to the house. the project does not include a vertical addition. this is a basement plan which shows the replacement of the existing exterior stair and relocation of the garage door and the entry to the lower level. this is the first floor

plan which shows the addition that extends to the back about 4 feet and it also shows a propoed skylight that will provide light to the lower unit. this is the second floor plan and it shows the removal of the exterior back stair and also the proposed deck and the roof plan, which shows the proposed roof deck and access to the roof above. so this concludes my presentation and i'm actually done before the bell rang tim is also here, he's the project architect and is available for any detailed questions. thanks. >> thank you, commissioners, questions? >> public comment. >> so with that we will open up public comment. any member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> yes, i would. >> please come forward. >> my name is dan hayes and i am vice president of the

telegraph hill dwellers and i'm really delighted to be here. sometimes when the hill dwellers come to these meetings it's not always this such a positive way as it is today so this is refreshing and very pleasurable. this is a contributory building in the historic building so given the history of this project, there was a lot of concern we began this process with. over time, members of our board, the members of our planning and zoning committee and members of the neighborhood have now met

on a number of occasions with the project proponents. the sessions have sometimes been direct, i guess what the diplomats might call frank and open discussions were held. but i'm very pleased to say that working together we, with the sponsor of this project, now believe that we have a preservation oriented solution to this particular project and so for the reasons in the letter that we sent you on january 23rd i'm here to tell you how pleased i am to be able to say that on behalf of htd we offer our full support for a certificate of appropriateness for this project and this is the way the project, the way the process is supposed to work. thank you. >> any other member of the public wish to speak? seeing none, we will close public comment and bring it back to commission. commissioner pearlman. >> yeah, i had a couple questions. the two options, i agree with the hill dwellers and the neighbors who all agree that option a seems to be a better direction. i think it's already a little strange, this facade, because the cornice and the windows don't align. so you already have a kind of funny anomaly just in the existing building. then to add, you know, a hood over a

window because something was there in the past that no one knows about would be a really odd thing because then you'd look at it and say not only does it not align, but one window has a, there's a hood over that window that's completely different from the others. i wonder why. so it seems to me option a is the way to go. i had a question about the conditions of approval. i notice the building colors were part of the condition of approval and i didn't think that the planning department took -- you know i didn't know that in any particular district the colors other than material colors like if it was brick, like red brick in a district, are there specifics about color in this district? >> commissioners, tim fry, department staff. not specifically in the appendix that governs the telegraph hill landmark district we don't dictate paint color. i think the clarification made here is

we wanted to ensure the wood siding is in fact, painted. it's really more a concern about finish rather than specific color. and we can clarify that if the commission feels it's appropriate. >> yeah, there was a lot of information about color in the packet and i thought that seemed well out of the realm of our authority, to pick the paint color for someone's home. thank you. >> at a completely non-preservation issue but it comes up sometimes when we have these pop-ups at the top of stairwells, the retractable roof access, was that approved in san francisco? >> yes. >> very, very helpful. commissioners, anything else? commissioner johnck. >> i had a question on the person that, the neighbor that is not all that happy with it. i'm just questioning the

statement, we do not agree that the roof deck as proposed in the net newet as of plans is consistent with building codes and planning guidelines that allow roof decks. a 500 foot roof deck is too large. we wouldn't be approving this if it wasn't consistent with building code. there may be a complaint it's too large but that's a neighbor's view. >> tim fry, commission staff. does the project require any variances? >> yes, for the rear yard variance for the horizontal addition and that was sort of a concession where we removed the vertical or the project sponsor removed the vertical addition and instead added the horizontal addition so it's not visible from the public right of way, although the vertical addition, just for clarification (inaudible) roof right of way. >> excuse me, our point is the

zoning administrator will be reviewing this in consideration of granting the variance after the commission approving the project. >> i want to say thanks to the telegram hill dwellers for working on this as diligently as you have. great, thank you. >> thank you. >> i'd like to make a motion to approve with conditions but clarifying that the issue about the paint, that it's not about picking the color but it's about the finish, that it is a painted finish. >> which option. >> requesting option a be the one that's selected. >> second. >> thank you. >> do i hear a second? >> i seconded it. >> thank you, commissioner wolfram. so, commissioners, on that

motion to approve with conditions option a specifying that the paint condition is about the finish, not the color, on that motion, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes. commissioner johns, yes. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner wolfram, yes. commission president hasz, yes. item 11, case 2015-017, amendments to the building code, building facade inspection and maintenance and establishing a fee. >> good afternoon, commissioners p la valley, department staff. proposed ordinance would add chapter 16e to the building code to require initial inspections, periodic inspections, maintenance and repair of the facades of buildings that are 5 or more

stories. under the proposed ordinance the facade includes all areas of the exterior of the building except horizontal roof areas. each building within the scope of this ordinance shall be subject to an initial facade inspection with submital of the first such reports for buildings constructed prior to 1910 due by december 31st, 2018. in the complete facade inspection schedule submital, which is done kind of by chunks of buildings by date, is contained in the ordinance. facade inspections and maintenance shall be conducted in accordance with procedures to be detailed in an administrative bulletin adopted by the department of building inspection. while the department supports the overall goals of this ordinance we do have concerns regarding details or lack thereof in the ordinance of pertains to historic buildings,

particularly those pursuant to articles 10 and 11 of the planning code. to address those concerns the department recommends this commission make the following comments to the board of supervisors on the pending legislation: recommendation 1 would be that to amend section 1604e of the ordinance. staff recommends amending this section to include specific provisions for buildings designated pursuant to articles 10 and 11 of the planning code. specifically staff recommends that the ordinance provide the following for such buildings: that it include professional qualifications specific to structural insfex and maintenance of historic buildings, that it require that inspection methods for historic buildings utilize least intrusive or invasive means possible the ordinance refer to the california historic building code or best practices within the field of historic preservation in addition to the general standards that are outlined currently in the

ordinance and that it specify that any proposed maintenance work steming from required inspections will be referred to planning preservation staff for review. recommendation 2 would be to amend the ordinance, provide additional information regarding the proposed administrative bulletin and to include the historic preservation commission and/or preservation planning staff in the development of said bulletin. these recommended comments are outlined in the draft resolution in your packeds which is before you for your consideration. this concludes my presentation unless there are any questions. thank you. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i do have a quick question. do you have any idea how many buildings we're talking about that are under article 10 and 11 that happen to be 5 or more stories? >> i don't. >> it seems like there are a significant number that are 5 stories or less. >> there's a significant article certainly in article 10 that are under 5 stories.

article 11 would be predominately above 5 stories because of the downtown concentration. >> commissioner wolfram. >> has the department had any thoughts about protection or similar language for buildings that aren't article 10 or 11, but would be considered historic resources under ceqa or some other -- i bring this up because i was living in new york when they adopted a similar ordinance and basically what happened is owners inspected their facades and pretty much cornices were chopped off across the city because my cornice is falling off and i don't have the million dollars to fix it. these were historic buildings that weren't landmark buildings. >> i think it's obviously this is before you for review and comment. you are certainly welcome to add such a comment and we would encourage that. i think when we were drafting these reptions our feeling was that article 10 and 11 were very clear because they are

designated under the planning code but certainly i think that those concerns are warranted and we would be happy to express those comments on to the sponsors of this legislation. >> one other question on a different subject. in the ordinance and in this document there's a lot about the inspection but almost nothing about what the maintenance -- what maintenance is going to be required and it's going to be in some administrate i've bulletin in the future, but there's no information about it. that appears to be lacking. >> bee would agree that appears to be a concern. >> my comment is similar which is who reviews it, who is going to administer it, is that going toch an impact on the planning department because more projects will show up. it seems like there's a lot missing. it still seems very general and there's a significant amount of detail about how this will impact

everybody, both dbi and planning. >> also i think i'd like to hear from some building owners. like let's hear from the other side. we keep talking about enforcement but what's encouraging for a building owner to go through this. like commissioner wolfram was saying is it better for them to just lop off a feature. i think we need to get some folks involved from that side. commissioner johnck. >> my thoughts are similar to what's been expressed already. my first thought was, oh, my gosh, what a nightmare of trying to bring us as the term, i think the gentleman from the dwellers said preservation oriented solution. how do we -- i think you've covered some of what i would be concerned about, about bringing historic resources into this, as far as including professional qualifications, inspection methods and making sure that some kind of report, information comes back to us.

as i kept saying, what's going to be done with the information, is it going to be going into some black box? so i guess, yeah i would like to hear from building owners as well what they would think about, you know, something like this. does this help? and it sounds like this has been crafted by concern over safety. fire, fire and seismic -- facades falling off. so i guess maybe is this ordinance going to committee soon? i mean is this the last chance we have for our comments? i don't know whether we'll have a chance to hear from building owners. >> commissioners, tim frie. it is pending before the board of supervisors for the hpc to provide review and comment.

this may be our only bite at the apple. >> right. >> but as miss la valley mentioned and commissioner hasz also mentioned, we think we have covered the proposed legislation. one is it's a requirement for inspection. if we can put in some best practices there and certainly if this commission feels that maybe as a way to you know, enforce the fact that we're going to be embarking on a city-wide survey soon if it states something like any building determined eligible for the california or national register would have to fulfill or use these best practices in doing their inspection and then we also feel that if we recommend including this commission and the department in the review of that

administrative bulletin, at that time we can provide further insight on how we think those best practices should be employed. >> if i may also i appreciate a lot of your comments because it does, the potential is there for this inspection to result in some finding some damage or something in buildings that would then come to us. they would pay the normal fees but clearly there's a staffing issue if a lot come flooding in. the follow-up wouldn't necessarily be in the form of legislation but what happens with the legislation, i would suggest it might be better if that was not in the form of legislation so it could be flexible over time to suggest that what is done with the information, the information, the follow-up practices and so on, might be best in some kind of follow-up technical memo or something that we work on with dbi and the commission could make that recommendation. a lot of times what happens with

these types of pieces of information is that it results in practices that we have to change internally so i want to make sure we're not left unprepared if that happens. >> i mean, it reminds me of unreinforced masonry requirement, right? what was their sort of stick to make that happen? >> it was a timeline and then article 10 was amended to basically facilitate any work, any unreinforced masonry building. at that time the landmarks historic planning board could provide some advice to the zoning administrator and director of planning but they weren't subject to certificates of appropriateness and that was a way to balance out the perception that we would have been inundated with these permits. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i have a few comments. first of all i think this is an important ordinance and it's a big safety concern because when we have a major seismic event

we're going to be finding lots of facades all over the streets and potential threat to life. so i think this is an important, i think i'm very supportive of the idea of the ordinance. a couple recommendations would be that we expand the piece in the planning department that rather than just article 10 and 11 we expand it to historic resources upb under ceqa so that's a broader definition. in item d where we specify maintenance work steming from insmexes, maybe something about the maintenance work done in compliance with the secretary standards and then (inaudible) be involved with the drafting of the bulletin that describes how it will all be undertaken. >> commissioner wolfram. >> about the administrative

bulletins we work with them all the time and they are designed so they are guidelines. you know, gives you a fraik work of how to solve the problem, they are not a legislative way saying you have to do the following. it's just meeting some standards. that seems reasonable. what director ram said about keeping it flexible, as we discover things about how these things are built there's many ways to solve the problem and keeping her out of the legislative part of this. >> no other comments? >> we didn't do public comment, i don't think. >> no, i'm saying from here. public comment for the non-existent public. so i will close public comment. >> you are adopting a resolution that includes your comments. that will be forwarded to the board. >> when do we have to have

this forwarded by? >> as soon as possible i believe. >> do you want to maybe, have you made a list of the things so we know what we're voting on? >> so i mean it sounds to me like you were generally comfortable with most of the department's recommendations but that you wanted to add or expand that the covers would not be just article 10 and 11 buildings but would be buildings that are considered historic resources under ceqa and that the work, specify that the maintenance work would be done in compliance with the secretary of standards and then specify that the preservation commission would be involved in the drafting of the administrative bulletin. did i miss --. >> that's the important --.

>> i make a motion that we adopt that resolution with that recommendation. >> staff's recommendation. >> including staff's recommendation and the added comments we have made. >> second. >> so on that motion then, commissioners, to adopt a recommendation of approval with staff's recommendations including as amended to include that the definition be expanded to all historic resources under ceqa, that maintenance be done in compliance with the secretary of interior standards and that the historic preservation commission be involved in drafting the administrative bulletin, on that motion commissioner -- moving ahead of myself here -- commissioner (roll called). >> so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. >> that's our final item on

today's ayen today and we will adjourn. (meeting adjourned). . >> we broke ground in december of last year. we broke ground the day after sandy hook connecticut and had a moment of silence here. it's really

great to see the silence that we experienced then and we've experienced over the years in this playground is now filled with these voices. >> 321, okay. [ applause ] >> the park was kind of bleak. it was scary and over grown. we started to help maclaren park when we found there wasn't any money in the bond for this park maclaren. we spent time for funding. it was expensive to raise money for this and there were a lot of delays. a lot of it was just the mural, the sprinklers and we didn't have any grass. it was that bad. we worked on sprinkler heads and grass and we fixed everything. we

worked hard collecting everything. we had about 400 group members. every a little bit helped and now the park is busy all week. there is people with kids using the park and using strollers and now it's safer by utilizing it. >> maclaren park being the largest second park one of the best kept secrets. what's exciting about this activation in particular is that it's the first of many. it's also representation of our city coming together but not only on the bureaucratic side of things. but also our neighbors, neighbors helped this happen. we are thrilled that today we are seeing the fruition of all that work in this city's open space. >> when we got involved with this park there was a broken

swing set and half of -- for me, one thing i really like to point out to other groups is that when you are competing for funding in a hole on the ground, you need to articulate what you need for your park. i always point as this sight as a model for other communities. >> i hope we continue to work on the other empty pits that are here. there are still a lot of areas that need help at maclaren park. we hope grants and money will be available to continue to improve this park to make it shine. it's a really hidden jewel. a lot of people don't know it's here.

test. >> call the meeting to order. >> commissioner president katz commissioner adams commissioner brandon commissioner murphy commissioner ho item 2 approval of for the december 16th meeting all in favor, say i. opposed? minors are approved. >> item 3 public comment on executive session. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed item 4 which you have session. >> a motion to move to which you have section all in favor, say i. we'll be matters. >> is there a motion