>>[gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome

to the san francisco distort preservation commission regular hearing for wednesday, february 1, 2017. i like to remind members of the public the commission does not tolerate any disruption were outbursts of any kind. please outer mobile devices at the sound off during these proceedings. and when speaking before the commission state your name for the record. i like to take roll call wolfram speeder hyland aye hasz, here. johnck, here. johns spear matsuda aye bedrosian temperaments we are first on your agendas general public comment. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached [inaudible] each member may adjust the commission of 23 min. you have one speaker card.

>> does any of them member of the public wish to speak to the commission on a non-agenda item queen seeing none, hearing none, we will public comment is closed. >> battle place us on department matters. item 1, directors announcements. >> [inaudible] commissioners, nothing to report. however the director is right here and happy to answer the questions should you have them. >>[laughing] >> happy new year, by the way >> item to review past events of the planning commission staff report and announcements. >> commissioners, just a couple items to share with you. as you will recall, this commission provided review and comment on the trailing ordinance to pop director at the planning commission did hear the item and did take into consideration your comments on the trailing ordinance. in

some, of the testimony spoke to concerns about the loss of pdr in the city which requires acu and on-site replacement. the need to deny - excuse me - supervisor kim's ordinance has all the testimony also supported the ordinance as a means to help and facilitate the adaptive reuse of older buildings. the planning commission deliberated over the nature of the exemptions allowed under the ordinance and they also considered allowed uses of the magnitude of job creation possible for the affected buildings should the project proposed pdr conversion. at the end, the planning commission voted six -zero in favor of the ordinance and accepted all of staff modifications. they do not however incorporates this commission's recommendation to

broaden this to all landmark properties within the zoning areas. however, that recognition was still be forwarded to the board of supervisors for their consideration when they take of the item at the land use committee. we do not have a date for the land use committee hearing just yet. but we'll certainly keep you posted. he was the that mean included the staff recommended the 49,000 to the planning commission. >> exactly, yes finally just a reminder three days of this defendant is coming up shortly on saturday, march 4 and sunday, march 5 to the planning department will be participating naturally on behalf of also the historic preservation commission so we will have a table there and we will keep you posted on the types of projects and materials that we are going to share with the public at that time. that concludes my report and thus you have any questions. thank you. >> if there's nothing further commissioners we can move onto commission matters. item 3 present reports and

announcements >> i've nothing to report today. >> >> item 4 consideration adoption of draft minutes >> any comments on the minutes we >> i need to do public comments. i'd love one comment on item 14. i guess where it says number two provide a [inaudible] at the west end of the socket i guess it's a want to make sure that sponsored ozment not talk about work within your. >>[laughing] >> i believe staff in their motion made it clear what you meant, yes. >> okay. is there any member of the public wish to comment on the draft meeting minutes of january 18 queen human and human we will public comment is closed. >> i move a be adopted. >> second. be thank you commissioners on our documents for generating 20 something hasz >> yes. aye johnck the hype

johns guide matsuda aye hyland aye wolfram aye that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners that will places on item 5 commission comments and questions. >> i do want to disclose that i did speak with members from forced city about the pier 70 price. commissioner pearlman >> thank you good i was walking down here today and i walked past 815-street which is a handsome apartment building from pre-earthquake days and write to the right of the entrance is a bronze plaque that says, this is a historic building and it's a little bit about why it's arrived the earthquake. he reminded me again how we seem to never get to the notion-i'm wondering if there's a way to do this-this was not city sponsored. clearly the owner of the building had put that all. i learned something today by walking by and stopping and reading that

plaque. it seems like just recently we had this it seemed 32 franklin, and last time we got the staff report on that. that's considered a storage resources and windows could happen. it's going to not go to a public cir to do the project for a use that's completely unrelated to the building at is there could just happen to be a place where [inaudible] started and it seems to me there would be a great deal of helpful for the economy and the way the department runs and the time it takes to get projects approved if we had an intermediate step which is, some way, to honor the thing that happened there without forcing an owner to go through and extorting extremely expensive and extremely time-consuming process for something that we all know what the outcome will be. don't be some mitigation measures. there

will be some reason to create some display in our lobby of a building that the one reason you would know about it is you went in a pilgrimage i mean, we have many of these historical presentations but they tend to be inside a building where something has been replaced, and that doesn't help the public at all other than the people who use that building. so i'm just wondering if we can-ivanova takes a committee or some way we can talk about a process that perhaps could celebrate the history of what happened in a place when there's something so obviously unrelated to the building. the building itself isn't much and there's very long process is going to happen, with the results known it essential. i mean, that particular project is even less impactful than the 235 valencia would have jones motorcycle dealership there where we all had this kind of discussion, and there on out

going to have to go through every long arduous process. or, they don't have to because of what we had decided on. so i don't know what happened with 1533 franklin but i went by the building. it's pretty unassuming and i don't know what is proposed there, but the use of the was there and the building itself just seems completely unrelated to one another. so it seems like a shame that process was going to have to be undertaken for something we already know. so, i don't know if that something mr. fried we can talk about queen even apply program to say such and such happened here. anyway so i like to see if there's something we can study about that? >> just a point of clarification. - excuse me - the commissioner, are you asking to have a discussion about the ceqa process or an interpretive program? because their standard mitigation under

ceqa when there's the historic impact would require were usually does require some sort of interpretive program that's acceptable. >> i'm not questioning that. each one is different. it just seems that most of them tend to be something interpretive inside the building. there are a few that's outside open to the public but all a lot of them are inside the building. so that doesn't seem that valuable for the public. there just seems like were always talk about the story of what happened here and we just don't seem to have a very good way of towing a store.-refer to philadelphia is a city that is done such an excellent job of being able to educate the public was just walking down the sidewalks. about the history of that's happened and it certainly has about 150 years or more history than we do. so i just would love to see if there's a weight the weekend perhaps come up with a program that's an intermediate between

a full-blown eir process.. i don't know what i'm asking because i just thought of this on the way down today. but i would like to at least have this discussion about something intermediate plaque program. that somehow someone raise events that happened better unrelated to the physical structure that happens to be on the site >> may i suggest that we used to have an events calendar topics for future meetings that were more-not necessarily related to project and maybe we could add the idea of a interpretive discussion about interpretive programs to a future calendar. we could also include an update on the landmark plaque program. ongoing. >> thank you for that. >> commissioner johnck >> i just want to mention that we did have an e-mail communication with ms. pretzel or from >>[foreign language] city about pier 70. very productive. >> is there any other comments

we can move on >> very good. commissioners that will places on your regular calendar for item 6 case number 2016-214227 crv the fiscal year 2017-2019 proposed department budget and work program. this is an information only. >> thank you jonathan good afternoon john rahaim the department on make a few opening, then introduce the staff. at that point again or talk about budgeted it seems, faster and faster the longer i'm here. i don't know how that happens. but we are at the point where we presenting to you and the planning commission tomorrow proposed budget and workplan and in two weeks we'll presented again to you for your recommendation to the commission to the planning commission. i will simply say before turning it over to staff, we have seen in this year's budget leveling off of

new revenues. for many years now going back to 2010 we have seen double-digit growth on most every year. that seems to have ended at least temporarily this year where we are you not seen any drop in revenues but we seem to be leveling off in our revenues. from last year which was a record year for the department in terms of revenues. we are seeing a slight dip in the numbers of projects but a kind of flattening off or plateauing if you will of revenues. that said, with that combined with new additional costs that we have every year and we've been a little more cautious about new programs, the mayor's budget instructions to all city departments was to that we were not to add any new positions in the upcoming budget. so with that i will turn it over to deborah landis, our finance manager who will just reminded

was here last year but had dissolved two weeks into the position when we presented to you last week. so deborah will present our top budget this could also going jeff joslin of course record current plan tom desanto chief administrative officer and were all available for questions for you. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners by naming his deborah landis. i'm here to talk about the budget this afternoon. i want to start with a little bit of an overview of what we are going to go through today. is that better the microphone? >>[inaudible] [off mic] i want to start with an overview of what were going to talk about today and then moving to with the director just mention about what we're seeing now that we are six-month through the current year and the projections for the remainder of the year. we use those projections to create our budget for next year so we will talk about that following their. then, going into the work program in the staffing of the department tim frye is could you speak specifically to historic preservation activities in our proposed

budget. so again will be back in two weeks to incorporate any feedback that you give us today and again we are here to answer questions now or within the next two weeks or so before we come back to present to you again. so there are two items i want to bring up as general budgetary topics. one is that we are implementing a new financial system in the city. this is for all 30,000 employees. this is for every single department in the city will be affected by this and so next year the budget preparation and the presentation of the budget might be a little bit different and i want to give you a heads up. we don't know exactly what it's going to look like yet but this year should still feel very familiar to you but prepare yourselves for the next cycle through. then also again as director mention, the budget instruction have no new positions as one of our instructions and the other main

point to take out of those was that general fund support needed to be reduced by 3% in each year. now since we generate most of our own revenue the general fund support decreased for us as approximately $51,000 gig so something that we were able to incorporate into both years of our budget proposal as we were requested. talking about the current year i think it's most important to talk about the general fund revenue. so this page whereas the rest of the topics today will talk about the entire budget, this talks about our general fund. as you can see, we are projecting to be about $3.2 million short in revenue for the current year. we are going to decrease our expenditures by coincidentally, not really coincidentally actually-the same 3.2 million. we sure we will make sure to stay within the budget this

you. as i mentioned before we are basing our future years budget on this year's budget. so what that means is we are going to add a cpi adjustment and we are also going to assume that we will be able to take some of the deferred revenue, which is projects that begin in a prior fiscal year and complete in the next fiscal year , that we will be able to take some of that onto our books. but really, we are projecting just a plateau in both the volume and the revenue for the next year. so talking a little bit about the volume, as you can see, we had an all-time high last fiscal year. we are just slightly below that given our projections now even though our revenues are just slightly above last years actuals. again, we are talking basically leveling off. with the revenues being slightly higher and the volume being slightly lower.

again, to the directors point, looking at the volume as well as the revenue, these are still all-time highs historically for the departments. so moving into what we are proposing for next year, this slide here shows the adopted budget for the current year. the middle column there is the proposed budget for 17-18 and we do a rolling two-year budget so the 18-19 budget which will change again next year is included here and will be submitted through the budget process. so the top line is highlighted there because our charges for service are really are application and fee revenues. so that is what we are bringing in to the department from the work that we do in planning. the grants and special revenues, we had an adopted budget of 990,000 good

unfortunately we did not get all of those revenue - excuse me - all those grants we had anticipated the we ended up with $680,000 for the year. despite having budgeted for the 990. we will be you be applying for some of the grants that we do not receive this year and we can get into that a little bit more in the coming pages. then, the big change that you also probably notice here is impact fees. there were two projects really that were funded impact fee funded that were in the planning department's budget in the current year. one ability to translate and one related to portsmouth square and those will not be next year's budget. they were one-time projects could we got the money this year and so that is a big change that you're going to see there. then, the general fund support is changing because, as

the budget system recalibrate itself, when the things like salary and benefit costs are put in, the difference in those costs is automatically added to the general fund support number. so the changes we make to the budget and the reductions we make come from what's automatically generated from the budget system. okay, so i think in the big picture here we are seen a decrease in the budget from the current year to the next year that is to match the true up with the actuals from the current year. so our total proposed budget right now is looking at $47.9 million as compared to the current years 51.3 million. so to talk a little more in detail everybody always wanted about the grants. you might notice, this is the revised budget so i

want to point out here that these are the grants that we did receive this year as opposed to the previous page show the adopted budget of the ones we had anticipated receiving. the proposed budget is anticipation as always. we will be reapplying for the number five on this chart here the african-american civil rights grant from the national parks service. unfortunately, we were not selected this year but we do believe that we have very strong case to make and we hope and believe that we were see funding for that one next year. then, all of these should also look very familiar to you. they are grants we regularly apply for and do regularly receive. the last two on here, the two foundations, are two newer ones. so we are quote quite hopeful those who come into our portfolio as well. so

that's the money coming in. that we are talking about how we are going to spend all of that money. really, salary and fringe. the cost of personnel in the city are the bulk of our budget. it is 72% in the current year and 73% - excuse me - 72% in the next fiscal year and 73% in the following fiscal year. so just looking at this table here we are looking at 33-34-36 going out of our 51, or 49 million dollar budget at a personal cost. in terms of personnel changes, since were asked not to add any new positions, we have decided to try and we purpose to existing

vacant positions so that we can get one additional staff person at the pic and so that we can get one additional additional staff person were gone to bowman's agreements. these are not new. they're taking existing vacant positions and changing the function of those. we also if you recall added many positions the prior year. we do have a bit of an increase into our base budget of the annualized positions because we had him as a partial in the year they are added. then they are there for a full year the following year. soviet t count changed a little bit. we had just under 5-4.78 increase of fte to the to to the annualized section of the positions we had last year.. we had a decrease also that we were able to take around temporary salary and attrition adjustments. so

attrition is the assumption how many people leave partly through the year were coming on a delayed schedule and that will have a vacancy throughout the year. so we were able to offset quite a bit of the annualized asian and in fact we are decreasing our fte counts in the base budget which is something that we are very excited to be able to report particularly given the mayors office request. in terms of staffing how it is divided throughout the department, you can see here the current year on the left and the next fiscal year on the right. they are nearly identical. we are talking about status quo from this year to next year and so the colors aren't quite right on that screen. hopefully they don't hurt your eyes quite as much of the printout. those

numbers there will be slightly different than the work program numbers. again, around the concept of attrition. the work program assumes people in the role will continue doing that work throughout the year. the budget assumes to be some turnover and so it decreases our fte count just around that assumption somebody will be leaving at some point and refilling might take a little while. so the next slide we have here is the staffing or the work program. we have just a division at a high level here. but we have the historic preservation work specifically called out in the next few slides. width just a quick question for you on this slide. how many positions as the apartment have open right now that are unfilled? >> that-how many vacant positions? i think tom can speak to that.

>> condescend to director of administration did we currently have about 17 positions vacant in his apartment. there are seven environmental planning. the couple in administration. we have 3-4 in current planning and then one or two citywide. so the biggest chunk is we've had a turnover in our environment so planning division. >> how does that affect the budget when you have unfilled positions of the current year. they're budgeted but you're not spending the money, right? >> yes. were in the process of filling them. when the budget goes to the board and the budget analyst reviews them they look at they can seize and say, well you're asking for new positions for your vacant positions. this year because the directive was not to add any new positions they're not to be positions to pepper were actually in the process filling most of those positions. when we get to june budget hearings we should have most of those positions filled >> thank you.

>> so i believe next we would be going into more historic preservation specific information. are there other questions about the budget generally or should we continue and hold all questions until they come up? >> we can keep going. >> great. would you like to take over? array. >> commissioners tim fry department staff. i will step back for a second and just talk about last year's budget and give you a refresher on some of the things. this commission asked for and where we are in terms of those commitments because they do relate to president wolfram's question about staffing. if you'll notice on the grant slide that was just up if you minutes ago, there was the historic resource surveys budget amount for $45,000 for the next fiscal year. that's the co g grant we normally apply for at the state level. this current year we do not apply for that grant

because we had the national park service underrepresented communities grant. that is a two-year cycle. also, the reason that that park service grant shows up next fiscal year is because barrier is slightly different than ours. so we will still be under that grant in the next fiscal year but as deborah mentioned, because those grants are generally longer than the cycles are longer do anticipate applying for the next grant cycle which will be in the 17-18 year as well. in regards to staffing at the last budget cycle the department included a legacy business staff person who had also handle cultural heritage strategy work were other work related to cultural heritage assets that this commission was interested in pursuing. certainly, staffing our cultural heritage assets committee. we also were going to provide greater presence at the planning information center

. so we were going to have a full-time. preservation planner on staff and then we anticipated a good deal of work through the environmental review process just given the amount of development activity that san francisco has. one additional position, that i think we talked about just in general last year but we did not articulate in the budget, - excuse me - is through the citywide survey program that word currently developing under the arches software with the getty foundation. we have recently made an offer to a planner-one gis specialist position to help us get all of our data in order to make sure we have a seamless transition

as we enter into the survey data collection phase later this year. that is one other staff person that will be part of preservation team very shortly. the legacy business staff person is not been hired yet but we do anticipate like tom said, to hire that person before the end of the fiscal year. and we have the position for the position at the pet, that position is posted right now and closes next week and we anticipate hopefully to hire somebody i the end of february. so that is where we are in terms of current staffing. yes? >> can ask the question person [inaudible] iveco to be the same person i would be there every day not a rotating? >> we will have both. a preservation planner will be met a member of core staff that will be there a number of times a week but we also rotating preservation planner set the current shifts. so the goal is to hopefully, just provide some consistency in terms of the faces but also provide just greater access to preservation

planning to the general public so have a greater presence down there. >> can you describe or remind us what special projects, what do those include? >> sermon. one of the special projects included in this table is the central soma area plant. that included the survey and development of the policies and attending all the meetings along with the citywide homage planning division. the underrepresented communities grant is also moved in here and we are still working on a story design guideline document that includes the secretary of interior standards. that is included in here as well. >> thank you >> if i could just quickly run through this table just to give you a sense where we are. you will see there's really not that much change that's going to occur. without anticipate occurring over the next couple of years. the biggest change

would be within our seat ceqa related casework as we anticipate to several bond initiatives that there will be a number of priority projects funded either by the city or state that requires ceqa review article as we are the lead agency. the anticipate we will be sharing a larger role in those reviews as those bonds were projects move forward. in terms of preservation applications like ebay or permits we don't anticipate much change. as just as a reminder, there is your historic preservation them participation program that's one fte. just below that that .1 five ft not only providing technologies and to the general public for communities sponsor designations but that's also our work related to the historic preservation fund committee. we have a large number of fund committee projects right now and we have i would say, exceeded that point one fte as you will start

seeing in our quarterly reports we are not talking that number. just related to fund committee work because i think there is a minimum of about five contact statements at least one survey that's currently being proposed for your review up in the next upcoming year. the mentioned the -r preservation project with user standards. where we attend current planning project review meetings with the rest of staff to provide preservation advice, legislation, advice to the legislation team, special projects i mentioned and again, you will see there's a slight bump in legacy business program and cultural initiatives because of the growing interest in that topic is related to this commission that most of those activities are housed with the preservation division and the departments.

>> looks like commissioner hasz he you have a question? >> yes. you said survey but is that a citywide survey you were talking about? >> that is correct. last year we discussed starting taken off the citywide survey. the good news is imparting with the getty foundation, most of the software and the technical system is becoming free of charge so there is not a substantial amount we are asking. you will see in the pipeline that we've shown the view slides before we so about $150,000 there because we do anticipate some consulting work with some additional work that will have to occur once we start collecting data in the field. but we anticipate-right now were developing the methodology of building a website with the getty and so

we anticipate being out in the field, hopefully, later this year. we will have two summer interns starting this summer that are going to help us start to prepare citywide contact statements. >> i'm wondering if you might- if we have a report just specifically one time on the special subject over you talking her that just on citywide survey. i thought that would be interesting because god is out there but have not heard much about it. >> i'm sorry under which line are the ftes? >> four- >> per citywide surveys use that would be under the first line the 1.50 preservation survey >> okay. that. in their? >> right. >> it's a good idea. >> so unless you have a questions all handed back over to deborah. >> commissioner johnck >> on the reservation related ceqa casework i'm interested to know a son four years ago maybe five no, we supported new

guidance for granting more categorical exemptions to projects that come through. the idea was to delete [inaudible] projects who needed extra work for coas, etc. and relegate others that did not need extra work. i am just wondering, were a faster track category. how is this affected staffing? as it made it easier on sapping week so the staff are dedicated to the coa and the [inaudible] and when we receive all those in the mail and there's a lot going on. a lot of them which is a good i think. >> through your comments and we were able to restructure the responsibilities on the team and through hiring create a dedicated preservation ceqa

review team that's managed by tina tam. of the senior preservation planner. so it has streamlined a number of projects through the process. because, again, because of development activity in the city, we have hired-we actually just hired another preservation related environmental review expert so we have about four people alone better just to preservation the ceqa review in our departments. that along with some process changes like the expanding the scopes of work on the checklist that you normally see, we were able to get a number of projects through the department without lengthy review as opposed to maybe 5-6 years ago where that would've triggered a formal report or a formal certificate. so, short answer is, we see an improvement. we hope you do as well. >> okay. >> we can move on.

>> pardon me there is one more slide. we kind of talked about this already. so the $75,000 bc therefore ceqa hrd consultants. this is all sold related to the bond initiatives. we anticipate that just with general workload and if there's a number priority projects that come through the departments, that we may need to hire ceqa consultants to help us with preservation work and i'll be on an as needed basis. again these are generally projects that are user 100% affordable housing or there were some sort of public or city program that is meant to serve the public good and so there's ashley streamlined to the process and we want to be able to respond in a quick manner. preservation public education is probably the best way to explain this but this includes the

[inaudible] program we've talked about in the past. your expanding that to also look at website whether it's through video or oral histories or other types of interpretation and we do have those funding this year and next year later to that work. the additional survey contracts that - excuse me - arthur was in the previous slide. this is the money i was referring to for the citywide survey program. this $150,000. this eulogy grant, as you can see, we anticipate applying this eulogy grant this year for next fiscal year. - excuse me - we have an ongoing preservation library grant from the friends of city planning. anticipate to receive this year and again as i mentioned, the civil rights grant from the park service would carry over into the next fiscal year. >> thank you. >> now i will turn it over to

deborah. >> can be asking questions on your previous slide before [inaudible] >> sure >> i had a question on the expenditure budget. joe's nonpersonnel services drop about $5 million. juries what that was why there such a big drop? i don't have a number [inaudible] but the one before on the color graphs. >> yes. so the nonpersonnel services that is mostly related to contracts. i can talk to details related to that. so, yes, nonpersonnel services that solve our professional services contracts. technology licenses, advertising, postage, and we are making the cuts to match our projected revenue. so, i

think some of the bigger changes around projects that were funded maybe in the current fiscal year only where the current fiscal year or prior fiscal year when the project is coming to an end and it does not need additional funding next fiscal year and instead of starting new projects like to make sure we have the revenue to match with a proposed expenditures. >> mostly outside contacts? >> yes. and if you'd like additional detail i can bring a slide into east to talk to it a little bit more but it is generally mostly outside contracts. >> commissioner johnck >> where is the pipe program? >> the plaque program is separate. that would be considered materials and supplies for the most part.

because of the cost of the plaques. we had budgeted for this tort preservation in the current years about 60,000 and we look at about 30,000 for next year. >> okay. great. >> as tim mentioned that does include some website content and is not just plaques. is the public education as a whole. >> great. okay. >> okay. as a reminder, the budget cycle that we have right now will be back in two weeks to give you the final final numbers what we would like to present to the mayor's office and then we submit to the mayor's office on february 21. after that, we have a few months of back-and-forth with the mayor's office and in the board of supervisors and eight final city budget including planning department will be finalized by the end of july.

so here we go again as john was saying. it gets faster every year and it does seem to take about half of the year. if you're wondering why seems like were always here is because we are always talk about the budget. is there any other questions. i'm happy to answer them otherwise we'll see you in two weeks i guess >> thank you but i think we'll take public comment at december does any member of the public was to speak on this item? seeing none, hearing none, public comment is closed. any final comments or questions? we are ready to move on. thank you very much. >> commissioners that places us on item number seven m 27-010 38 seven at 151 liberty st. >>

>> good afternoon commissioned as end up early with the department staff. the item before he was a request for certificate of appropriateness to restore the historic façade of 151 liberty st. the subject building is a four story two unit residence in the conference i'll locate on the south side of liberty site between the wars and within the liberty hill and mark isham's article was constructed in 1913 by builder clifford aldrich. all features features wood frame construction have timber [inaudible] and a gable with. the building is back from the front property line due to a steep fee graded lot is located in her arch-three sony district

[inaudible]. the proposed project is correct in violation pertaining to the removal of the historic façade 151 liberty st. the project sponsor previously granted a certificate of appropriateness by the commission in 2012 for a rear horizontal edition construction of a new garage and minor façade alterations to relocate the secondary entrance to the property seconds unit. under the approval of the façade was to be repaired as needed in all historic materials were to be repaired. it should be noted, the visions were approved under the 2013 building permit including new windows. it was brought to the departments attention in march of 2015 that he proved the scope of work have been exceeded. all work is currently under suspension pending the decision of the preservation commission. per article 10 of the planning code the scope of removal of materials made façade does qualify as a demolition of historic resources. the project sponsor retained [inaudible] a

qualified preservation architect suis to assist in correcting the violation. the proposed scope of work includes the repair and reinstallation of all historic wood brackets which were preserved. the repair and installation of all historic [inaudible] eight of which were preserved in the [inaudible] to match the historic material and design. restoration of the have timber details at the third and fourth stories could restoration of the historic gable by dishonest all oculus window to match the dimensions of the original band. and all windows on the primary façade will be custom built him a double hung sash windows with two divided like to match the historic design. no additional massing or removal of historic fabric is proposed and all of the work was previously approved by the historic preservation commission and emotion 0219 in 2012. due to the extensive removal of historic -- the historic pros

of would restore the historic character of the disability including its distinctive materials architectural elements and faces that characterize the property. all restorative work will be in conformance with article 10 of the planning code the secretary of interior standards. all new features we based on photographic and physical evidence of the buildings prior conditions therefore compatible with the character defining features of 151 liberty and the surrounding landmark district. staff has reviewed three e-mails regarding the project at the most recent of which was not included in your package and jonas just handed out to. the liberty hill neighborhood association and merely adjacent neighbor have requested the commission consider requiring a sponsor use historically appropriate materials for all windows and siding at the rear of addition to the new addition, for compatibility with the property and surrounding district. i would

like to note that staff did receive an inquiry regarding the number of existing units prior to the original application jesse yesterday. the legal use was to honor port of residential building record and a single-family dwelling in this banner does not affect the commission's ability to make a determination this afternoon. staff recommends approval with conditions of the proposed restoration project as a means the sec. of interior standards for rehabilitation and staff recommends the following conditions. but the project sponsor shall provide maternal samples including samples of materials for the proposed stayer and handrail to ensure compatibility with the surrounding them art district. the proposed sponsorship provided a detailed schedule detailing the dimensions of the proposed new windows and providing elevations in section. the sponsor shall complete a site visit with

preservation enforcement staff prior to occupancy in order to verify compliance with the approved project is fiction that conditions of approval. [inaudible] are here to project present on a project am here to answer any questions. >> thank you. is the project team here ready to present? >> hello present lockley and commission. my name is artie blogger an architect in san francisco for 35 years. with extensive experience preservation. i was notified when the notice of enforcement was first issued and to come and take a look at what had transpired that you recommend them to have to make this right. the-i think it's worth noting the original give a that you approved was mirrored in the site permit that they had approved and after he left to you it was an addendum to the

site permit which is actually the full building permits. this work was all reviewed with rich sucre who i knew from when i was on the heritage issues committee and he was with paige and turnbull. he okayed the conditional assessment with the windows. basically, the project sponsor followed the direction that this experience preservation planner had given them and thought they were doing the right thing. during when i looked at the project, i actually went out to the site and i knows the limits that are ordered ashley did not match the drawings they would have to replace those. that the columns that you had approved for the entry were victorian type columns, round columns and they should be changed to square columns which are more in the craftsman style. basically, working with preservation staff, have come up with what is before you now, which i feel

they feel, is a true project that meets the secretaries standards for reconstruction because we know what was there before. it was documented and that's what you have before you. john duffy who is the project architect was hereto also insert any questions you have technically about the project, but i think you have a good project before you. >> thank you commissioner, any questions we know. thank you. commissioner mr. david you have a question >> i do not have a presentation but am certainly answer to answer questions of bernie >> i don't have think we have questions about time but we will bring you up. at this time will take public comment on the subject so far as one speaker card for mr. john harvey. >> good afternoon. my name is john barbie and i have lived at

50 liberty street for 31 years. i'm one of the surviving founder members of the hill basically a group of five of us. we did it. i cannot recall a case like this since we established the designation, which was put through in 1985. we are an entire façade was removed. repair is needed, but it goes a lot further than that it i realize this is one of those odd cases where an and wordy and is that total variance with the major the taurean house right next to it. but is also a sandwich between this and other edwardian on the other side of it more like it. i can see with the temptation was to make changes. i apologize. i live in the next lock down but gross street is

divided so i was never able to-literally i don't hope the next lock above me up a very steep hill. so i never saw this happening. myself until someone noticed it out a month ago. notified our president to notify the two weeks ago only just before i went to my dad's 100th birthday, and i [inaudible] in england two years ago so i'm not even been in the country for the last several years much of the time. i do hope that this is taken very seriously. i have not had a chance to research whether we have any documentation about what this house look like it may have been altered between 1913 in the present day, but past experience shows not too much documentation is available

and so much was destroyed except 1913 as well after 1906. there must be documentation available. if there's time to research it. that's-i-you don't have my e-mail or letter because it wasn't able to do that from san diego and i apologize and i am stunned that this could get so far as through the process and only now with notice of enforcement be corrected. i thank you. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public wish to speak to this item? if so, please come forward. >> good afternoon. my name is ingrid akers. i saw you all before. i never i live on 20th st. in a little cottage which

is about 100 feet or so north of this building. my concern is because next to my cottage there's a big project being developed that you also approved already. 3751 20th st., which has been used well, actually this one on liberty street has been used as a model and is a precedent for the one on 20th st. cottage. can i have the overhead? that is the one next to my cottage. you see five floors. two underground. one

garage on top of the garage and underground units and three floors top of that. here is even bigger and the orange one is the 20th st. [inaudible] as you can see. i know i'm not going to talk about the façade but am worried because this project that is a monster on that is coming next to my little cottage has looked over to this one. and has over and over again use this as a precedent for size and also as a model. as you can see for what they are doing. here's also two underground units and

three units above for the main unit and what has happening here is with these underground units, that the guardians are destroyed. i mean, they are dug up. it turned into trenches and into retaining walls, and the, i guess the underground units and will be affordable housing whereas the rest is not affordable to anybody. when i was here the last time the question was whether you have prevents overlooking beyond the façade and the answer was, yes. you can do that and i think it's not just prevents but it's responsibility. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public wish to speak on this item?

>> good afternoon. my name is georgia should issue and i live on duncan street in >> no. a valid. i know that's far away but july 10 one of my neighbors had a dr at the planning commission this project had dr that was withdrawn. so i was curious because of the two dr set the same time that i looked at the plans on the website and for this project even though the dr was ultimately withdrawn and if i may have the overhead, please? thanks. this is the original second unit to down there. you can see living room, bedroom, kitchen. i swivel units. you can see it's got this fireplace which i assume is old because it's put in the drawing. here was the plan for what they were going to do and i thought it was peculiar because why would anybody have

is the largest room in a units eight media room? i'm a movie fan but i would not have a media room. in my living room and kitchen combines. anyway the thing was withdrawn/forgot about it. until i saw what i would characterize as the gasp inducing picture of what happened to this building i don't see how anyone could think that because it's pre-stunning in a historic district in san francisco. so i looked at the current plan and here you can see the media room has been close off on the second unit in the separate and as i noted just now but was true before, the elevator for the building that goes to the whole building, also goes into this so-called separate units. it was was the best two homes when it was for sale. i think

it does matter what goes on inside a house as well as the outside could i think that is historically joined in i don't know if it is or isn't-it's not clear-but it seems like it was sold away and has to address. and a few solid john king: this morning where he talked about the palo alto butcher. he said, make the mistake of preservation of aged buildings is essentially your physical evidence of our neighborhood or city has you bald. there were shared connections to the past for anyone who cares. but what is inside matters, too. i think that's true of this project with this unit. justin closing i just want to read from dr. frommer's letter personal liberty oh she says, finally, he approve of any action or alteration of permit fees that add additional burdens on the permit holders for this violation. we would like to start sunday song message of these actions now and in the future not stand in our historic district. thank you for a mustard >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? seeing none,

hearing none, we will public comment is closed. bring it back to the commission. commissioner johnck >> yes. this is a real problem here. i wrote on my staff report, problem, problem problem child. i guess, i think i would like to staff to respond to some of the public comment, whether our staff recommendations-i question whether our staff recommendation fully meets the intent or spirit of some of the public comment in the letter particularly i think you mentioned it was a letter that came and. maybe it was in my e-mail that talked about asking us to look at your of the building are my two. that was one point. and whether, here again, if you could respond to some of the public comment including that one, it would be

helpful >> yes. i would be happy to. so in the e-mail dated january 30 that jonas passed out, ms. frommer mentioned that we requested historic preservation commission require the permit holders to use historic metros to reconstruct all windows and siding compatible with the rest of the building. i had a phone call with ms. frommer two prior to that and she felt that the rear of the addition, as previously approved by the commission, was clad in stucco. i'm not positive about the top top of my head with the windows material are they are a very simple contemporary a lot of them are casement windows or i believe fixed could show i think for intent as well as that of the neighbor to the immediate west of the property,

has asked that the entire building including this new edition be clad in historically probing the jewels meaning horizontal wood siding and would work potentially would clad window. that was the primary concern that came up for me. where, as far as the comments mentioned regarding the unit size, that is a new concern that just came to light as i said, yesterday. so we are doing some more research to determine whether or not there is any additional need for possibly notification or some kind of compromise in the size of the two dwelling units at the property. >> could i follow up and say, would additional research perhaps alter your recommendation to the extent where this is not appropriate for action at this time? no,

not as a >> no. we believe that even if the planning commission or the department require a second unit to be either expanded or clarified in drawings that technically may not affect the exterior of the building which is under your purview. all we were essentially trying to do through the enforcement action is, one, honor the hbc's original purple and recommendation which was for the envelope. however because of the violation, you are technically reviewing the project as a new project. so you do have discretion to make further recommendations were to impose further conditions of approval should you see fit. >> we approval of the whole reader question about the rear of the building, was approved quite a while ago. in 2013

>> that is correct. >> okay. just finally, was there a penalty a financial penalty imposed by the building permit on the violation? >> for the associated violation the department of building inspection does assess a fee for the building permit at three times the typical rate and for our work through zoning and compliance with the banning department there will be charged for all of the time and materials. the sponsor has been very-they been communicative and responsive in all their request notices we have sent. so we didn't go to the point of our typical requirements of the $250 a day penalty because they were following up in a very timely manner.

>> commissioner temperament >> thank you. ms. kirby, i was trying to remember that back in 2013 this doorway was added i mean try to see on this picture from 1976 were there to units? were there to units were just reconfigured it were at that time was that second unit added? >> so that's what we are currently working into the history of. what the if and when a second units was legally added and if not, we have some kind of history showing that may be a units was added but not in a legal-not under permits. i have reached out to the rent board to verify whether or not there's any addiction history at the property and that's usually very quick turn out but i

[inaudible] sent that e-mail yesterday so that's still to be determined. so we will be looking at prior permits in the history of the building and most of that is information we've already polled to see what , whether or not there's a second unit with that footprint involved and if there's any other enforceable issues through that. >> yes. i was asking because there are two addresses it. his 151-153 and then i seem to recall that part of the fee back in 2013 was creating a new entrance for this lower unit that-so it seemed to be there were two units back then >> yes. i can >> i think i can remember the woman who-yes. just a quick thing related to that group about the elevator. a residential elevator cannot stop into separate units and appears from the plans of the residential elevator. so i would question the project sponsor as to whether they

think they're going to be able to have an elevator that stops at that particular units is. so because otherwise it would be a much bigger-it would have to be a commercial elevator. that's just an aside relative to who to your review of the project. i think that these are always challenging because the violation get you wonder why someone would go that far to exceed the scope. i think if they do fall through i trust mr. lerner. he's an accomplished preservation architect that with his help, this will look pretty good when it's done and hopefully be indistinguishable from before, and freshly done. so it will look quite good. so i endorse the program as it's been presented and hope they follow through on it. >> thank you. commissioner hasz eight >> thank you. a couple comments on this one. one is on the beer

addition i understand the woman who spoke here who lives in the cottage and feeling of being buried behind the buildings. but as i look at the overhead, satellite view of this, adding on another half to this building will become equal to its neighbors. i don't see it as being out of scale actually at all. they are not going above the height limit of their neighbors, so to me, that is not really an issue. i can understand consistency of materials but then again, we have proved so may things in the back of the buildings that is nothing to do with historic

materials. so, again, there are, i really don't see cause for any change from what we already approved. on the elevator issue that's what we were just speaking about. also of a fire separation between units so-it's just the elevator going to do for unit is a far reach that it's a separate units. but that's not our purview. >> yes.. i would say that while it's not our purview when we see things-we only know will we get in our packets. but we have owners who do things that are not permitted in then things change in the drawings and things are suspicious we-makes us very nervous. even though it's not our purview it doesn't does reinforce our suspicion something will be done right that's being [inaudible] through. that seconds are because unfortunately there's many many

a lot of good builders and owners and developers in the city there's also quite a few who do things that are just trying to sneak something by now but somebody does not see it. when something not having the enforcement planners this something is an annex use for doing something not according to code. so i think it's a good you have the enforcement at the end did i wonder if that is enough? do we need to stop have something halfway through the project we think that's the thing about the things that are not in our purview they not be in our purview but they do reinforce the sense that something is pressed not right. >> i should say for this project we have a working relationship with the department of building inspector and the inspectors who are overseeing this project. there is an and ob as well through dbi. so i am happy to bring these can concerns up and make sure the project is fully to code and operating as two separate units.

>> commissioner hyland >> just a follow-up on this. i realize there's a retaining wall with green scape on it. i mean there is a good history of green scape to through the back if this is not a requirement but a request sponsor not to paper over the entire backyard. that's all we had a problem with on the 20th st. they were doing nothing but concrete in the document completely ruined the green scape that goes beyond all these buildings. having adds a tremendous value to everybody involved. then, on the-that's it for now. >> all right. commissioner hyland >> two things. maybe a question on a learner can help answer but i had a concern for the reconstruction when it came before us last time. it seems that the exterior shading-i do know that is a sheer thing is that sheer to the exterior are the seismic work? what i would like to see in the packet that's not in the packet, is a

real detailing around how these brackets and the window and the trim and the sheathing come together. we have some window details that are relatively just generic window details they are not in in situ with the adjacent trim. i would hate to, while i know you are a very well and i trust you, my concern is that this trim work as it gets added back on will look just like that added back on. so i would ask the commission at an additional condition on this motion that-i'm not sure-i don't think we need to have it come back before us that some architect with use that detail to make sure that it actually doesn't look like eight pack on. i don't know how we figure out with the detail was prior to the sheathing added but i would

typically see the sheathing on the inside of the wall so that the steps in the trim can concur around the opening. >> you're asking [inaudible] >> yes. this first part was is this a sheer? is the sheathing part of the structural work? >> yes. it is. it is sherwood highwood >> wasn't explored for that sheer on the interior as opposed to the exterior? >> i don't recall an analysis about putting it on the inside but i also know there's some steel tubes in the wall as well. i suspect i given the loads involved that probably needs to go on the outside to get the connection all the way through and not just break it at the floor. >> the condition i would like that to add-on is the details in situ yet reviewed to we understand that it's not just

how a complete flat façade and we lose the depth i would have been there. that's the first thing. the second thing is that there's some reference to san francisco the tory on a and it says, sf numbers denote wood trim products that i could not find any sf v numbers and it seems like a pretty basic trim pieces but there are these pieces going to come from? san francisco pretoria has gone out of business. >> that may have to do with some of the columns in the trellis at one point which we've now taken away. come back to an all stucco homes similar to the original so i think psf v items are not no longer needed. but if they were, a lot

of their products are quite generic so we could find them if need be. catalogs i have done that before. but in relation to those columns in the trellis, they have been revised that to stucco >> that's probably a leftover queen >> i think it is >> the trim pieces are pretty generic but i was curious where they would actually come from. >> yes. i think we use the catalog is a resource at the time. >> any other questions? >> thank you very much >> manacled back to one previous comment? the elevator. the elevator is intended to not stop at the lower unit at all. it can be programmed to go straight up to the upper unit, no access at all to the lower units. also, for the lower unit is currently located was originally a basement. was never a unit in that location good house had

been subdivided possibly in the 70s or at some point. so that's where the living units were in the main building above the basement. so there was never a unit at the basement level. thank you speak >> thank you for the clarification at director rahaim to have a comment? >> commissioners can adjust as a suggestion in your deliberation some of the items you are discussing very similar to the violation that you reviewed in almost where it was a concern about trim and detailing and at the time the commission.-i believe were three hearings related to that project but one of those hearings was more than informational hearing requiring the project sponsor to combat to demonstrate that they were able to match the details to your specifications. again, i believe ms. kirby is qualified to go out there and work with the applicant but if it was some additional concern either

we could come back and provide an informational presentation to you we can invite the project sponsor to do so as well. it sort of an intermediate it progress reports as they are doing the work because we will certainly be out there several times working with him. >> commissioner pearlman >> i feel like between arnie lerner and ms. kirby, we got some pretty good eyes on the project and feel like-it would be nice as this thing is getting built maybe ms. kirby comes back just during the opening of our hearing just to give a quick report and show some pictures but i think we need the additional hearing and 22 last project sponsor to come back. >> i agree with that. commissioner johnck >> i'm okay with the status approach with the façade. i'm interested in still looking at the rear, not that i would be interested in acquiring-and i know it gets tentative when we -about our jurisdiction or

purview in the rear but i am interested in this issue but the landscape and commissioner hasz he mentioned that. i think the fact that this is before us again gives me the opportunity to look at this building in a context of the landscape in the neighborhood. i was wondering if there were support for adding them condition about the green scape in the back. how would we get at that? i can remember what it looks like in the back other than the photographs that we have good staff, do you have any recommendations or anyone here if there would be support for adding some condition about requiring retention of green scape if it has been taken away can be reinstalled? >>[inaudible] [off mic] writes.

>> commissioner pearlman- >> >>[cross-talking] [off mic] >> sorry about that. >> may be mr. lerner can verify but from the site plan it appears that only about a quarter maybe a little less than a quarter of the rearguard has eight [inaudible] and most of it is that grade could so there is sensible yard over 75% of the rear yard. and it's very different than we saw on 20th st. which had significant retaining walls stepping in course. this appears that one small court >> 8.1 >> yes. it .10

>> that shows the whole area with papers. so that's why brought it up. one drawing with [inaudible] and that's why brought this up. about half of it. >> yes. on 81.2 there is a patio could >> yes. it was not good newer papers started and stopped and goes to the retaining walls is already clean or not. >> yes. >> well, rather than adding something to the staff recommendation, i mean if is going to come back to staff-not to us but to staff, can you look at that? do you need some >> commissioners, as the setting is one of the aspects of integrity that's under your purview, you do have full discretion to add conditions of approval. we would certainly need some direction about what

you would like us to review or look for if you did want to impose some sort of landscaping requirements. so i would encourage you to add that to the recommended motion if you choose to do so. >> right now this packet does not exist in condition through your plan or elevation. i'm not that comfortable-i'm a little concerned about adding records we don't have enough information. we have in the past approved some of contemporary looking additions in the back and we have uprooted this before and >> we approved the back part of this assessor the way was >> right. i know. because it's back before me to look at the [inaudible] >> commissioner hasz he >> the thing we do have is the satellite join the retaining walls completely covered. to me just retention that at a minimum and a request to have any clean we can. that would be my only request. >> we could ever quest to work with staff to consider the

setting of the rear yard including some greenery perhaps >> just from the satellite that retaining wall goes for multiple properties is completely covered in green. i think that's a tremendous value to all the residents of their >> commissioner hyland >> ongoing to try to summarize a motion. moved to approve with the staff recommendations and conditions the added condition that further details be provided with the windows and the trim and the brackets imposition in context and then what about if we added condition paving be restricted the light cord and the rear yard. >> i specifically would like to say the rear retaining wall remain green. >> okay. the rear retaining wall remain green. >> okay. >> thank you >> i will second that.

>> planted. >>[cross-talking] [off mic] >> planted. >>[laughing] >> that a be reviewed by staff and brought back to us just for informational hearing. no need to hold it up. >> thank you >> second. >> i seconded it. >>[laughing] >> i think we have a motion and second. >> commissioners if there's nothing further, if you don't mind i like you to confirm the motion with you. the motion is to approve this matter with conditions as recommended by staff and as amended to include further details on the trim bracket and windows and this is the portion i did not get is that paving was restricted to what? >> scratch that. >> a very good.

>> just to the rear retaining wall to remain planted and for this all to be reviewed by staff and brought back at an informational and. very good. on a motion commissioners, commissioner hasz he aye johnck via johns via matsuda aye pearlman aye hyland aye wolfram aye that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners that places us on item 8 per case number 2016-008712 zoa 333 dolores st. this is a certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon commissioner. elizabeth a planning staff. the certificate of appropriateness before you is for proposed work at 333 dolores st. currently occupied by the [inaudible] school and historically known as the st. joseph hall. the building was constructed in 1925 by architect offered caldwell and it's part

of the landmark site 137 notre dame school. historically st. joseph's hall served as the sisters of notre dame grammar school for girls from 1925-1986. the primary façade of the building faces south towards the school's playground and the interior at the block. although st. joseph's hall is not described in the designating ordinance included in your packet for the landmark site, it was located on the same block and lot when the designation was adopted. the proper has since been subdivided subject building is now located on a separate log but is considered to be incorporated into the landmark site. the building is also part of the intermission north survey and eligible for listing in the california register under criteria one for its broad patterns of cultural settlement in the mission district and criterion three, fourth mediterranean revival

architecture. because the building was not described in the designating ordinance's character defining features were not outlined. therefore in your packets to have a historical resource evaluation that was prepared by staff historic preservation consultants and the hra delineates the character defining elements of the site that were put in place between 1925 and 1976. these elements include but not limited to the building three-story height and the l plan for permit the compound roof including the terra-cotta tile. the exterior stucco cladding. the typical window configuration of multi-light wood casement windows. the location of the building to original entrances and the general arrangement of the open-air pergola. the project proposes exterior influence of the south's socket the main kazaa. this includes seismic upgrade removal of the existing non-historic fires.

removal of the flu of the perl book to increase [inaudible] for ada access. and modifications to the openings at the pergola level to accommodate new ada entrance doors. the existing metal gate at the west perimeter of the square would be replaced and relocated. existing alumina windows and mental fire doors are proposed to be replaced with units match and historic parents during these period of significance. by the existing clay tile roof is also proposed to be replaced. the department has received for letters of support better in your packet for the project it did not received any of the communication could the department has determined the proposed work will not adversely affect the subject landmark site and on balance is consistent with the secretary standards. the project removes the existing date as noted earlier perpendicular to the side wing and installed a new

security gates. staff field overall today provides adequate transparency and visibility to the historic building the attachment to the bold main building are minimal. however staff want to recommend that the gate and fence currently shown to be hot dipped galvanized still be treated with a powder coated finish to better accomplish the character of the historic building. additionally, just to go into more detail the project does remove the terra-cotta clay roof tiles and the project sponsor who is here today can will expand a little bit more about what they plan to not reuse the existing tiles. we can include in your packets a conditions assessment for the clay roof tiles are thereby architectural resources group which found the clay tiles to be in good-fair condition but this is not the reason the condition of the tile is not the reason for the removal more

interested with safety issues competitions with the seismic retrofit scheme and possible injury and loss of tiles during the completion of the seismic work. staff reviewed the replacement of the tiles for compatibility with preservation 316 also included in your packet. that the use of the substitute materials on historic building asked areas. we found that the removal of the clay tile would be consistent with two of the circumstances that warrant the consideration substitute materials. this is number three in the original materials and number four: required changes. the planning department recommends approval with conditions could there are four conditions including the motion and staff report essentially these are for the project sponsor to keep in contact with the planning department to provide samples to powder coat the gates and fences and other railings and to submit

specifications for any salvage a windows session. that concludes my presentation and project sponsors here with a presentation >> thank you project sponsor would come forward, please?

>> commissioners,, there are some exterior improvements that need to accommodate that accessibility. in addition we have a series of seismic improvements to the 1925 building that will bring it up to current code. that really starts with the foundation and goes all the way through the building and ends on the roof could that's what were talking a little bit about the clay tile of the project. okay.

thank you, much. , chris. so the project site is a flag lot. though dolores street it. cds is located mid-blog. it has limited visibility from the public right away on dolores street. the project scope is mostly about holy focus on the south façade facing the interior of the lot. if we go forward here, chris, we will zoom in here. the first component of the project scope is accessibility. so what we are proposing is a level landing underneath the existing pergola. and a ramp

that goes down to the children's yard. in addition to that there's a little [inaudible] connects to the drop-off children's drop-offs about provide accessible route as well. of course, this all links up with a new elevator lobby on the inboard side. small component of that new entry is the security gate. so for the sake of the children we need to figure out a way to have the play yard secure from the public right of way and the backside of the notre dame old school there. some part of the project is this minimal steel fence. there is historic preservation you're actually removing a nonconforming fire escape on the façade that goes from the top floor all the way down, and we're actually landing on the interior that picks that up. so we are going to remedy the

existing openings that communicate to that fire escape , turning aluminum doors back to the original condition on the upper stories that will match the old historic windows. then along the bottom of the façade-i'll show you some a few implements we have there as well. then finally the seismic retrofit that will bring up the project subject property of two code. we have a series of foundation improvements and shear walls the move up through the building. the project structural engineer needs to light up the load of the roof to reduce the seismic loads onto the building so we can retain the historic character of wood beams inside and so forth. so we need to take off the tile put a continuous sheet of structural plywood and then put the tile back as part of this project scope. a little history that a couple shots of

the st. joseph hall circa again built in 1925. the shots are in the 20s-30s, i believe. some existing can separate shots. look at the south main façade most of the work will take place on. again the only visible portion from a public right away on dolores street is through this alley were seen on the lower left image. the smaller shot there. no were proposed on that elevation. a series of enlargements. to give you a sense with that existing façade looks like in terms of the existing wood sash windows, the historic pergola above and this condition that happens underneath the pergola. there's a series of stairs and ramps did bring up two different levels that is in congruence with original historic

condition. we are proposing to remove all that, raise into one unified level so we can have accessibility to the openings. so all children regardless of their mobility access they can access the play are directly. then a quick study of the before and after elevations. so squinting here, the existing on the lower there shows that steel fire escape going down from the third floor which will be removed and the elevation above is the proposed good so it's scrubbed of that non-historic fire escape and the non-historic doorways associate with the second and third floor are removed. the window profiles will be inserted to match the existing historic condition and plaster were placed below the knees that. beneath that. we will

zoom in the new lobby entry. today the left-hand side shows the existing condition would sash windows. we are proposing to put a double swing doors to one side and the profiles will match the historic condition more or less. and perspectives as you walk in. around the corner so you are seeing a little shot of that security fence that wraps around that divides the play yard from the public and then as you move closer to the lobby, you will see also said smiling children waiting for their parents to pick them up and then the play yard beyond is a secure fence. a detailed shot of the existing plate clay tile. we did have a rg go out and do a existing conditions assessment and while the tile itself is in fair shape, the active needing to

remove them for the structural of grade will likely damage at least 10% of the existing material. now all the bridges are mortared in place. so to remove them they lose will be destroyed and the contractors anticipate some of those will be destroyed by the sheer removal. second recent we want to replace these things out of necessities the structural loads existing heavy clay tile has. the uppermost portion of the building. the seismic solution is such that wants to retain as much of the historic means below and that necessitates a lighter weight roof. so we found a lightweight clay tile that matches precose the profile of the existing tile

has a variation of the color and they even have this particular manufacturer details whereas the field tile is an s-curve which helps with the waterproofing at the edge condition was single barrels that will replicate the existing historic conditions. so from the yard you won't be able to [inaudible] will be replaced and we get the benefit of a lighter weight roof into means of attaching for each type it right now the historic condition there is one wired to hold each of those tiles up it's not unheard of that some of these tiles come off because there's no redundancy. we will actually have two wires per tile which you can imagine with a school program is fully important for the child's safety down below. then, little detail of our material pallets. i am here to answer any of your questions could we also have molly hoffman, head of the

school from-is here as well. if you have questions for. and [inaudible] is well us with as well papers as per reservation is for the property. >> thank you very much. we will take the public at this time. commissioners any questions for the sponsor? no i think we are good. we'll take public comment on the sun. any member of the public wish to speak on this matter? if so please come for. seeing none, and hearing none, we will public comment is closed. commissioners, do i have comments, questions or motion? >> thank you i let think this looks great. i think it's a sensitive and well done project. i think when it's completed no one will really know the difference between what was before and after. so i want to make a motion to approve with the conditions as noted by staff. >> yes, thank you i guess

there are couple comments. commissioner johnck >> i will second that as well. excellent. beautiful work. excellent. it's great the way you deliver the program. thank you >> commissioner hyland >> let's just move this right along. >>[laughing] i think it's a great project and going to look great. i do of a couple questions on the roof tile. i understand the need to replace the diet it's unfortunate i think [inaudible] will be lost. one question or thought that i had was there seems to be a staggered some sort of a staggered lane pattern of the existing and even though we are going to new tile i was wondering if we could somehow replicate the staggering of it so that we won't have rigid horizontal lines through the roof? for example, it's hard

to see in the photos included in here but the tiles are not in a complete row as they are shown in your examples. there's a little more texture to the way they are laid. i would just suggest that. >> is that s-curve >> yes. if you match >> if i could respond to that you are picking up, commissioner, when the single barrel nature of the existing condition at that is [inaudible] sometimes they do that sometimes they don't. in this case they have. but we are going to begin with is eight s-curve to points of attachment. so what we can do is talk to the manufacturer to see, one if we can stagger them every other piece to replicate this but it would be every two rather than every other. because the connected. >> that's my only suggestion.

i think if there's a strong horizontal lines right will pick up on those as opposed to what is there. it softens the rigidity of the pattern. >> can i ask what you can see roof envelope? >> there's a diagram >> i know. it seems like it probably not many places you can actually see the roof. >>[inaudible] [off mic] >> if you submit comments you need to do so at the microphone >> thank you. >> because we are in the middle of the block and because it's a three-story building you really can't see the roof and less you're in adjacent building looking across added. you can't look up >> so you can just see the edge of the roof >> yes. >> you can see it on page 9 little session. you have to be

pretty far about 250 feet away. i don't think >> arabic my suggestion be difficult to achieve. it certainly an increase in [inaudible] a bit more difficult and i just think if the patina is going to be gone if we can maintain some texture it would be a nicer installation. >> could i suggest that condition they work with planning staff to determine if this is feasible and if so they carried out not to say they have to do it. >> yes. >> that seems reasonable. >> yes. i would approve that as a conditional of condition. >> that's good >> so if a motion and second. an additional condition. >> that additional commission was, i am sorry? >> to work with staff to try to introduce or reintroduce some of the staggered patterns of the existing roof tiles. >> and two german feasibility

>> yes. >> commissioners, does a motion to approve this matter with conditions as a move to include a condition for the project sponsor to work with staff to reintroduce the staggered pattern approved house. if feasible. on a motion hasz aye johnck aye johns got matsuda aye pearlman aye hyland spirit wolfram's got so moved the motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners that places us in item 9--amd could 188 haight st. this a certificate of

appropriateness. the zoning administrator will consider requests for various. the thank you good afternoon commissioner. department staff. per euro is root certificate or purpose for alterations to a single-family dwelling at 188 haight. part of denmark 154 he met larry lakin building. project poses rear façade alterations of the main residence and a motion of a non-[inaudible] to be replaced as a new construction one car garage workshop and will check it out from the john the throughout the drama front façade the project would repair existing windows an existing laminate with laminated glazing at the rear project would add the new u2 story squarely at the main residence and a new openings for door and window in a small second floor deck spiral stair axis in the rear yard. the project requires of areas from the zoning administrator to proceed construction of the one car garage at the rose street frontage at this through loss.

the zoning demonstrator present to hear the variance requested a. after publication of the case reports public comment has been received by the you the commissioners the zoning administrator in or by staff. i've copies of all known communications for your review and some in support of some in objection to the project. primarily related to the variance request for the one car garage at the rose street frontage. i've copies for distribution. staff finds the proposed project conditions is recommended is informants with her arms in article 10 and meets the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation generally and proposed alterations and additions will not alter or obscure any character defining features associate with the landmark . staff supplementary reclamation includes approval of certificate of appropriateness with the conditions noted in

the originally submitted draft motion that these specifications and detailed drawings of the scope will work involving replacement with insulated glazing be reviewed for replacement staff for existing windows sash and frame systems. in addition, the commission will secretary just a stupid modified copies of the dr. motion which includes underlying added second condition of approval on page 2, which states as follows. that the historic preservation commission delegates any minor modifications the result from changes to to the variance for staff review and approval. having initially reviewed some proposed modifications to the one car garage component of the project, which may include modified garage location and adjust the location of stairs from staff finds the project would remain in conformance with the secretary of interior standards in article 10. this concludes my presentation. allow the project sponsor to provide you with more details in the presentation on the

project and i'll be available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, you want to come forward? >> commissioners, and zoning administrator, good afternoon. my name is janice but i'm the project architect. with me today is care for to an historic consultant for this project. as previously noted the project is before you because requires this certificate of appropriateness and variance. the only proposed building envelope addition to the historical confronting on haight street is the rear again consist only the two-story bay window on the second and third floors. the second story all shape deck under 50 feet and the spiral stair. all of which are on the rear façade minimally or not visible from nearby locations on rose street

and not visible at all from haight street which is the primary front façade of the building. i will show you an image of the house. on the stork front façade we are proposing window repair and replacement with insulating glass in the existing windows sash. on the rear of the property, which is a through lot with frontage on rose street at the back the proposal is to build a garage with a small workshop. for the owners and a roof deck accessible from the midblock yard. currently, at the rear there's an existing modern garage door screens parking and associated structure holding the door in

place. a small shed addition to the adjacent historic cottage on the lot next door. it variance granted in 1984 separated the shed from the carriage house. both the shed and the garage door on non-historic. any change in this area, however, requires a variance because it is technically required your art and certificate of appropriateness because of the historic status of the property. this is a rendering of the proposed rose street façade. we

believe the new rows facing garage is a significant improvement over the existing façades on that street and one has the functionality of the lot thereby furthering further promoting and ensuring long-term viability of protection the landmark. in terms of meeting required variance findings, there's an unusual circumstance because of the historic classification. the through lot existing garage door which is not consistent with current code limitations of garage door size and the existing conditions on the block which uniformly preserves small amount of open space, not on a rose street side but between rose and haight. the new garage is substantially lower in height than the two immediately adjacent structures and within the average depth of those two structures. moreover, the garage is lower than the existing garage door and shed

heights, and the resulting bid lot yard area still greater than the average on the block and actually stands usable open space because of the development of a deck and a low-profile garage roof. the shed and garage door are nearing the end of their useful lives do not contribute to the functionality of the character of the adjacent historic structure at 188 and 18 198 haight st. authors such as leaving both in place as is or to motion both were not benefit the property owner, neighborhood or historic character of the surrounding historic buildings. there is no other proposal that could be accomplished without a variance thus imposing hardship of maintaining large older non-historic nonfunctional structures. the planner

submitted i believe letters of support could i've one additional one to add to do believe that came in this morning. the support letters are for neighbors at 188 haight, 180, 182 haight and 260 rose st. within the last few days we have proposed minor revisions to the rear garage and was deck layout to meet concerns of an adjacent owner, andrea tischler, who resides at 281 roanoke street. - i'm sorry - owns that building who has a light well adjacent to the property. the agreement thus far is to flip the parking and access stair to the west side of the property and provide an on grade plants are adjacent to that properties light well. the property owner kyle and rebecca daugherty are present and available if you have questions. >> just a question. so then

what is the-what you are proposing is a little different than we have in our pocket. is that correct? >> that is her. that represents a parking pad on the eastside and proposal is to flip it to the westside. essentially nearing >> the elevation would nearer the was [inaudible] >> i need to check with dpw will not the ideas we would put in a street tree replacement permit it's a young tree was planted in 2014. it's about 2 inches diameters. living it downhill would be okay. we will check with dpw on that. >> okay. thank you. any questions the project sponsor while they are here? okay, thank you very much. so at this time i think we will go to public comment. any member of the public was to speak on this item? if so, please come forward. >> good afternoon

commissioners. and mr. zoning administrator. i am andrea tischler and i'm the one that owns the property adjacent at the rear on the rose street side. the 21-27 rose st. when i first saw the proposal i was very much opposed to the project. just because of the massive size of the project. the variance calls for 25% of the rear lot you being used for yard and this considerably shortens that. also i was very opposed to the fact that part of the deck on the second about the gage, was going to -intruded into my light well could i have-there's an apartment building like four units and they're very very small apartments. under 500 ft.2. i've owned this property since 1970s. mid-70s. i had it

for 40 years and my son lives there now. both he lives in the upstairs unit and my tenant lives in the downstairs could the downstairs particularly has a lot of mold problem. in the unit because there's no air circulation from a lattice and you might see from pictures in your packet there's a lattice and [inaudible] unfortunately, the deck the way was originally proposed was going to come into the light well and continue to contribute to poor air circulation. very bad light. because those rooms in the apartment are-there's eight actually-six windows that face out into that light well. would be further obstructed and also

poor light and air circulation consuming the mold problem. so, but the owners have 188 have really made a lot of concessions in that they want to pull back the deck to the edge of the light well and so therefore i'm going to not have any problem that there is light and air. so that is nice. they have also agreed to flip as the architect mentioned, the garage so that on the other side of the garage, on the other side of where the proposed garage and shed is, there's just a carriage house. it's on unoccupied. what we've noticed over the period of years with the garage being there that barrage door, his right adjacent to our property and so every time the garage door goes up the bedroom is creepy

affected by the barrage going up and down. people going into. so the owners also have agreed to flip the garage to the upside of the property. so that makes it really good. so even though i still have some questions about the size of the property, of the developments in the backyard, i'm not going to oppose this project. because of that. mainly because the owner seven so agreeable to flipping the garage and moving the light well back to moving the deck back to the light well and it just works better for us all around good sweating the project is really improvement. the façade on the rose street side is going to be nicer with the garage without little shed on the street with a window in it. and so for. not exactly