>> i make a motion to take d.c. and move the wall back. >> is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: thank you. to take the modification as modified, bringing in the wall 4 feet and preserving the notch. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> president hillis: all right. we are -- so ordered.

>> good evening, to part two of the san francisco ethics commission joint meeting with the board of supervisors. like to call item number 4, public comment for items appearing or not appearing on the agenda. >> hello again, commissioners, san francisco human services network. it's late, i will be brief. i would like to express sincere appreciation for tonight's hearing and for your thoughtful consideration and open mindedness -- can't say it, it's so late. open mindedness to the many amendments that have been suggested and we look forward to

continuing that conversation as this process continues and i am feeling much more optimistic about the passage of this significant reform legislation in a way that will be helpful and will achieve the real goals to stop undue influence but with a balance that takes into account the needs of the general public, including non-profits and donors that it may affect. so, thank you. >> thank you. >> no more public comment. >> adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor? we are adjourned. the san francisco historic

preservation hearing for wednesday april 4th, 2018. we please silence your mobile devices that may sound off. if you kay o care to speak, state your name for the record. commissioner wolfram. >> here. >> commissioner black commissioner johnck. >> here. >> commissioner pearlman. we expect commissioner hyland to arrive shortly. first is general public comment. at this time members may address the commission on matters of interest to the public your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when

the item is reached in the meeting. you may address for up to three minutes. >> any member who wants to speak on a non-agendaized item, come forward, seeing none we'll close public hearing. >> item one. >> good afternoon commissioners. director ram will not be joining us this afternoon, but should you have questions, i'm happy to forward those to him so he can answer them in a future hearing. >> seeing none, item two review of the staff report announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners. tim frye department staff. no formal planning commission report, however, department staff along with dpw and members of the community met with supervisor sheehy's office this morning to discuss the condition

of the pending landmark designation for the diamond heidts safety structure. they were able to complete their report that supported the arts1 commission conversation recommendation and they were able to do maintenance work to help with the overall well-being of the are sculpture in particular. there is a tree leaning against the structure and they'll help the property owner cut back. we'll continue to follow up with the arts commission, we've confirmed it is on city property, it is a city-owned sculpture. now it's a matter of talking to the dprks pw and arts -- dpw and responsibilities and whether they have to acknowledge it's

part of the art collection then we'll be able to move forward with the hearing full board. i'll keep you updated. but overall, everyone left fairly happy with the way things are moving along. >> president wolfram: thank you. seeing no questions, we can move on to commission matters. item three, president's report. >> no report or anaouncement today. >> item four, consideration of draft minutes for the hisser toic preservation hearing of march 21, 2018. >> commissioners, any amendments to the minutes? at this time we'll take public comment on the draft meeting minutes of wednesday, march 21st, seeing no one to speak we'll close the comment section. >> i move theb they be approved. >> second. >> thank you on that motion for the hearing for march 21st, with 2018 commissioner black. commissioner black.

>> yes. >> commissioner johnck. >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman. that passions unanimously 6-0. item five, commission comments and questions. >> looks like we have no comments or questions. >> very good. are there items placed for continuance. item 6, 120 stockton street, a major permit to altar is proposed for continuance to april 189, 2018. >> does any member of the public lish to comment? seeing none. we'll continue. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you commissioner to continue item 6 to april 18th, commissioner black. >> commissioner johnck. >> yes. >> commissioner math sued w.

>> yes company commissioner wolfram. >> yes. >> that passes 6-0. there are no items under consent which places us for item 7. case for 930 grove street. certificate of proapness. >> alexander kerby with department staff. item is a request for certificate of appropriateness for the res habltion of 930 grove street. -- rehabilitation of 930 grove street. the two-storey over basement building is the woork of martins and coffee and was constructed in 1897 as an expansive single-family home. the successful south carolina-born industrialist. it was subdivided into 12 studio

apartments during the second world war, thus the property's current legal status is it's a 12-unit building. are the property has been have a kanlt since approximately 2012 -- it will has been vacant since approximately 2012. the current condition of the building was brought to the attention of the planning department as a referral for a task force inspection involving the city attorney's office, department of building inspections, police department and it pyre department. numerous complaints have been filefiled with dbi, a case was opened in february of 2017. to monitor the restoration of the property. this will was done pursuant to planning code 1008. the department required that a report be prepared for a qualified consultant to guide restoration of the property as well as outline mothballing

recommendations in case rehabilitation is not completed in a timely manner. to date, all department requirements have been met by the property owner and architect and there are no outstanding penalties or requirement. the project includes the preservation of a concrete wall, stone detailing, wood siding and decorative detailing. wood windows, doors, stained glass, sheet metal flashing and gurts. they'll be cleaned and repaired with compliance with the sect of interior standards. all specified treatments are outlined in the report and specifications are prepared for inclusion in the construction permit set. portions of the interior will be restored as identified in the plans. please note there is an application for below grade garage currently pending with

the departments well. based on the requirements of article x in the secretary of interior standards, staff has determined the work is in character with the building. all aspects of the existing building would be retained and preserved and no distinctive materials, or spaces that characterize the property would be removed. staff received one e-mail in support of restoration of the property from mr. philips of the community planners which will be passed out to you here. planning department staff recommends approval with conditions of the proposed project as it appears to meet the secretary of interior standards. staff supports the projects with the following conditions. the project sponsor shall accommodate monthly site visits with staff to approve compliance

with the conditions of approval. in addition, mock-ups of repairs would be provided prior to completion of work for planning department review and approval. the curved window ashes, wood ornamentation and columns and stripping of wood siding to be conducted on the rear facade for mock-up. site permit specifications will be required to include in the building permit the guide of construction progresseses and a qualified consultant will supervise rehabilitation fl specified features from the previous decided site. i'm available to answer any questions. >> any questions for staff? >> is there a presentation from

the project sponsor? are they here just for questions? do you want to come forward? is five minutes adequate? >> i'm john goldman of goldman architects. i thought i'd give you a brief history of the project. i've been involved with 930 gold for 20 years. they required us to turn it into 12 units. zoning allowed one unit per 1,000 square foot. we splilt it up on the 8,000 square foot lot we built the building next to it. 926 grove which used to be the address of the whole man shan. now the mansion is 930 grove. the new building was finished

over 10 years ago. after the prior owner sold the property to the current owner, and at some point after that, she contacted us since we knew the building. contacted us to do two things, an underground parking garage which at the time the original design was for seven cars. the new one is small for for three cars now. you'd see that sometime in the future. the seven-car garage did receive a certificate of appropriateness but it was over 10 years ago so it expired. and then the second project is the interior remodel and facade restoration. originally, we had a permit for just the interior remodel and the facade was going to be a separate permit. what we've done nowal is combine that work into one permit. that's the set of drawings that you see.

most of the work involves restoring the facade to its original condition. paige and trumbel, i've known them we went with architecture school together. they were hired to do a report on the building back in 2007. they were involved and did the report. as of february last year, they got reinvolved to do the historic struc structure's repot which is what you've seen. we created our set of drawings which consists of a series of plans and detailed set of photographs of the particular conditions. we have notes to each photograph

which relate to the recommendses of paige and turnbull. in addition to that, what you haven't seen is we're having paige and turnbull do construction specifications to make sure that for instance, the paint where it's peeling is removed properly. we'll see if there is any original paint under there. everything is restored properly per their spec specs and per our drawings and we're excited about this. it's going to start as soon as possible. my client is eager to begin. frequently asks me when can i begin. we're excited and treas going to happen. we're doing it the right way with paige and turnbull's assistance. i'm available for any questions. >> commissioner pearlman, do you have a question? >> yes, but it doesn't relate to the restoration per se.

i'm curious if you have to meet ada requirements for this because of the number of units? >> in the prior permits, they did not ask for us to do this. >> issued when? this is like 10 years ago. >> a residential building is not required to meet ada, it would be the california building code chapter 11-a or b. but there is exemption for historic buildings. >> i don't remember exactly what code it was. if you're building anything new, like there are knew bathrooms, this residential elevator i wonder about. >> that elevator is not a ada-size elevator, it's for one person, for the convenience of the owner. we have not ever been asked by the building department to provide accessible units. if we were asked to do that, it would be considered a non-elevator building.

>> it counts because that's why i'm asking the question. >> let's say the building department said we want you to do ada, at that point we remove the elevator and make the ground floor units a dataable. >> dataable -- adaptable. >> if you were to put in a commercial elevator, that's why i'm asking. >> that would trigger all sorts of things. we're concerned about it negatively affecting the historic fabric. >> we have another question. >> it's a statement. i apologize for arriving late. you have a disclosure. i've been involved with all the communications on this project for months now. dennis richard, planning commissioner and the dbi commissioner and i made a site visit to assess the -- at that time, security issues which was

six or nine months ago. i will say that since from good pagoodman -- goldman, since he's been involved in the communications, the response and the issues that have been identified as far as meeting concern with being addressed. he's been responsive. >> one more thing because you mentioned security. we now have we just got a full security system that will be installed inside the bulling. -- building. we're even u upgrading what we'e done. >> does any member of the public want to comment on it? you'll have three minutes and there is a warning buzzer. >> i'm sam fibreman. i live at 817 grove which is a black and a half away from the

subject property. i've lived on grove street for 27 years. the house is between my house and the park. i walk by it frequently. in the 23 years, i've seen this house gradually return to the earth. it's literally falling apart. neighbors have complained about vagrants living there, fire and trash. i was delighted to see that the planning commission had taken up this project and dennis richards in particular. it's an eyesore. i just -- i want to thank you for doing something about this and i would request that you redouble your incidents in monitoring this property once it gets started. because the current ownership is willing to allow this to happen. it's only the forcing function of the city government that is stopping this. this right next to alamo square

where the tourists are. if this was not done, the house would either catch fire and harm people or return to the earth. so thank you, and please monitor this and stay on top of it. i don't have any confidence that the owner is going do anything that she isn't forced to do. >> does any member of public wish to comment? if so, please come forward. >> i'm jim, i'm the on the bic commission. as commissioner hyland said, commissioner richards from planning and i were part of the inspection and i was on task force that got into it when it was in its most hazardous state which also involved the city attorney and the property. there is no question that there has been a very, very long and

difficult history to this building both with the current owner and prior owner. and yet, we have the undeniable fact that it's one of the treasures of the city. we have been through a very, very long process to get to this stage. we're pleased that paige and turnbull has documented everything so everything is clear. we look forward to this as being a situation where the worst is behind us, now we can proceed with a very positive approach to rehabilitating the property in a very correct manner. as the previous speaker said, the concerns are very real given the history of the building. there is cause for optimism. the cause for optimism is the city attorney, dbi, planning and you are all very informed for

what is at stwke here. it provides us an opportunity for all the departments to work in even closer concert to protect the historic assets that we all treasure so much. so the monthly inspections are a critical condition. i've spoken to all my fellows at dbi and the lead people at planning on this. just enforcing those and being sure that this move through now with great care and high level of supervision to be sure we get the results that we're looking for. is clearly the goal and we all saw some recent articles will bad things that happened to landmarks during the construction process. and when i look at this, i

basically say this is our opportunity. we are all on notice to make sure that everything is right on this and hope to fully we find very constructive manners in which to work together that can become the model which we use for all historic properties. thank you for reviewing this again. we're at the point of optimism. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is e.j., my wife and i live at 827 fillmore street around the corner from the subject property. we acquired the property about seven years ago. did some restoration on our own

building and understand the difficulty of upgrading property of historical value. i'm pleased that the historic commission has taken the interest in the property. i've we reviewed the drawings that the architect prepared and i'm confident that with your intervention and with the competence of the architectural drawings that the work will be done properly. i'm not concerned so much with that aspect of it as i am with the mobilization of the project. i don't see that anything has happened on that property since we've been there, and from the remarks of previous speakers today, maybe it's been 15 years before that that building was actually occupied by anybody of significance. i've seen as the previous speaker has said, that this building is returning to the earth. i think that's a very

well-chosen expression, because it a landmark building that is basically deteriorating before our very eyes. it's also a great safety hazard for the neighborhood. i've heard reports that people are afraid of fire there. it could very well happen if is not occupied. consequently, i know the historical commission doesn't have the force actually to make the owner do what has to be done. but i hope that this is the first step and actually moving this into a stage of mobilization so that we get the work accomplished. i'm not concerned necessarily with the appropriateness, although it appears to be very soundly presented to the public. and i appreciate that. again, we need to make the owner do what has to be done and no more procrastination.

i thank you for your time. >> thank you. any other speakers for this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner johnck. >> well thank you for moving ahead with this. i mean, i've seen this happen over many, many years, this deterioration of this property. i am thankful that the city has gotten behind this. so i think what has been presented here sounds adequate from the architectural restoration aspect of it. but related to this last gentleman's comments, and i realize that one of the conditions is monthly inspections. but did i mace -- is there a timetable? we -- did i miss this? is there a timetable? >> what's the timeframe for getting it done or can we make that as a condition? >> we haven't received a timetable for construction.

that is something i'd be able to incorporate into the conditions. the city attorney is still involved to a lesser degree. it would be something that would be relatively easily enforceable. >> i would be interested. i can move -- i'll wait to hear any further comments, but i can move approval with requiring the owner to submit a timetable for the completion of the project. >> i wonder if the city attorney would weigh in. this is somewhat unusual. the question is, are we able to include a condition of requiring the inclusion of a timeframe or a schedule. >> a schedule for completion of the restoration. >> victoria long deputy city

attorney. you'd like to include the condition on the certificate of appropriateness. yes, i think you could do that. you may want to consult with other aspects of, you know, the city agencies are involved in the development, in the approvals and so forth of the project because the timeline would depend on how the other approvals go as well. i don't -- so that would be up to you on how you want to handle that. i think that would be something to keep in mind what the realistic schedule is. >> what we're asking for is that there be a schedule. not that we're dictating what the schedule is but that a schedule be provided of the approval. >> how the schedule is accomplished, that's another story. i would like a schedule. >> but you'd one to be. and you could require, for example, an update at a later

time with the specific schedule after it's been worked out? >> sure. yes. >> commissioner -- may i p interject quickly -- may i ject quickly. we'd ask you also to put a trigger to it so the schedule at the time of the building permit submittal or prior to the sign-off so there is clarity. i was also going to mention, you have in the past asks for informational updates on projects that are pending. so you could add that as well. >> thank you. commissioner matsuda. >> i totally support that. because of the procedural past of this, that certificates of appropriateness have expired. i think it would be good to make sure that's one of the conditions. i noted that in your report, you said that there was a neighborhood input meeting on 223. and i would suggest maybe as a

courtesy to the neighborhood to just let them know what happens today at rhbc meeting. for monthly updates, if there is some way that you can kind of generate some kind of list serve for the neighborhood and include about the continued updates. i think the neighborhood and the community deserves that. they've been waiting a long time for this to happen. >> thank you. commissioner black. >> i want to thank the city forces and other forces for keeping watch on this and insisting that this property be brought back to what it should be. it's a splendid building. i strongly support the notion of having a schedule. again, that seems to have been

helpful getting the project to where it is now. so continuation of milestones met would be valuable. i also want to encourage the owner to move forward with all due speed. they're going to be some then then there are are going to be charming units that result from the work to renovate. it's going to be a lovely building. and i would think that would be a financial benefit to the property owner over time. also, it gets units back on the market. we need units throughout the city and therefore, i'm in support of moving this forward. >> thank you. commissioner hyland. >> i would agree with everything said. i would second commissioner johnck's motion with added conditions. i'd also ask if possible, if the commission could write a letter for the file expressing -- for

the pile expressing our concern for building. i don't know about the legal language in it, but it's tenement to demolition by neglect. i think maybe we as a commission might write a letter expressing that's our concern. >> could we write a letter or have it be in the findings of our motion. we have all the "whereases" in our motion. could we state what you just stated. >> that we have grave concerns that this neglect is tenement that this is demolition by neglect. >> could we add this as whereases in or motion? >> i think you could do that. i was just thinking about, i'm

not familiar with the city attorney or action on this property or the code enforcement activity on the property. so i'm just not sure how that statement would relate to those pending, you know, open actions, enforcement actions and i don't know whether there is currently a city attorney enforcement action. i think you might want to consider that. >> thank you. miss kerby. >> weed hwe'd be happy to have e city attorney's office use that language. we deferred all the planning actions to our department. and are available in case anything doesn't come through on the timeline we provide to the sponsor. >> i would propose a friendly amendment that we add a whereas. >> whereas this commission feels

that the neglect of the inaction. >> the inaction is potentially -- >> is considered demolition. >> inaction up to this point. yes. >> so, i will formally move to prove the findings to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed work with the added condition that we request the property owner to submit a schedule for the rehabilitation prior to the issuance of building permit. okay. and that in addition, we include an additional whereas clause as we discussed. >> then, if i can add, the notification to the community or to the neighborhood of the progress and as to what is happening today. >> okay. >> second.

>> i think we have a motion and a second. >> okay. i just saw names on the request to speak. >> very good then commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as has been amended requiring that the sponsor submit a construction schedule for completion of work prior to building permit application issuance. >> to the community? >> to the commission. i was referring to the commission. informational update to the commission, notification to the community. >> adding a finding that the inaction to date has amounted to demolition by neglect. that language to be vetted by the city attorney's office and

the enforcement team on that motion -- >> commissioner frye, did we miss something? >> commissioner wolfram, you made a point on -- i thought it was important we don't have the building to inaction. >> action to date? >> to date. when you talk about demolition, it sounds like the whole building is being demolished. but there are areas of demolition. >> we're not taking public comment at this moment. can you reread what we're saying? we should be careful how we phrase that. >> miss carby is going to review it. >> that sentiment based on what the enforcement language. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner johnck. >> yes. >> commissioner johns.

>> yes. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes, commissioner hyland. >> yes. >> that passes 7-0. item 8 for broadway and davis. this is also a certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon. marcel boudreaux. this is for the landmark district. the project proposes construction of two new six-storey mixed use buildings for units with families and seniors for grand floor commercial uses, support and child care uses. it was removed by preservation commission on march 15th, 2017. the sponsor has responded to the comments. for reference, the arc meeting notes and annotated plan are included in your packet.

the project sponsor included a memo of further refinements with additional feedback from the community. all the changes are incorporated in the plan set dated march 9th, 2018 included in the back of your packets. the project sponsor will include more details in their presentation. staff finds that the proposed project which includes all the modifications conditions as recommended is in conformance with the requirements of appendix c of article xi and meets the standards for rehabilitation. in the designating ordinance for the landmark district, the area of the parking lots witho was deesmed incompatible to the importance of the district. they propose construction of two new bulls which are generally in conformance with the landmark district through the scale proi portion, materials, detailing,

color, and pattern of the district. public comment was received at the time of publication of the packet. the two e-mails, one of them generally expresses general support for the project. the other e-mail expresses objection over the lack of parking in the project. staff's preliminary representation is approval of the certificate of appropriateness with two conditions. first being the project sponsor shall continue to work with the planning department staff on building design specifically elevations or especially elevations facing on the crossing. the final design not limited to color, finishes, textures and storefront display shall be removed and approved by the planning department prior to the issuance of architectural agenda. the project sponsor shall submit exterior signage plan or the

signs that may be proposed for any commercial uses to the planning department and proposed signage shall be reviewed as an administrative certificate of appropriateness for such review outlined by the historic preservation commission. this will action is not the first approval action for the project. this concludes my presentation, i am available for any questions, but i will hand it over to the project sponsor team. they have a much more detailed presentation to provide you. >> thank you and will 10 minutes be adequate for the sponsor team? >> 10 minutes is fine. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. bill lety. and with me is my colleague. i'm going to run through a quick sort of orientation to the

project and then aaron is going to explain in detail how we reresponsibled to many of the comments from the community and various preservation organizations. so -- the project team for this project includes bridge housing corporation, jon stewart company who are the codevelopers and we have the mayor's office, we're working with mayor's office of housing and community development and port of san francisco who both have jurisdiction over the properties. initial partners include the ymca, and lutheran social services. we've gone through a lengthy can, almost two-year-long process of working with the neighborhood and various public agencies including the port. we've met back almost a year ago now with the architectural

review committee of the hpc and have met twice now with san francisco heritage and have addressed their concerns as well. so, the issues that have come up-to-date have included items such as setback on the sixth floor. material integrity, etc., and we've worked hard to address both the rc complents that we had and various community -- rc comments and various concerns that came up. for those of you who haven't seen this prompt, it's located at the corner of broadway and front at a greatway location. this -- gateway location. this is affordable housing for homeless to 128% of ami including seniors. it's a gateway to broadway and

northeast waterfront district. we started our process of design with a very in-detailed analysis of the patterns of the district. two sites, one large one for the family building owned by the port and another one smaller for opening on to davis street owned by the tpw. the context as you are aware is quite mixed. it includes 20% brick bearing wall buildings. 46% frame, concrete reinforced buildings built at a later date and 26% non-contributing. here is a variety of the brick buildings in the neighborhood. and what we call the frame and in-fill buildings characterized by large windows. some of the non-contributing

buildings. so from the beginning, the project was designed to integrate with the characteristics of the historic district. first by including two mid block news spaces which are a pattern in the district. that would be open to the general public. we worked hard to relate the building to the context, mixing references both to the existing brick buildings as well as the frame and in-fill buildings and provided a variety of indoor and outdoor spaces and views and light. here is the overall metric of the building and showing the massing and how it steps down towards the water. the plans -- zooming in here, the family building on the port

property, going north/south and east/west and the senior building to the right. this is a view of the building from front and broadway. reflecting a reduction in massing that we have recently achieved while not losing any units. on the left, you see the project that we presented to the arc a year ago. on the right how we stepped the building down and recessed the top opportunities back to reduce the mass on the street. there is a view looking down front street. actually, looking down front street, you can seed mod laition between the frame and in-fill build exption the brick facade.

a view from davis and broadway looking back toward the senior building. this is a close end of the site plan showing the mid block views again and retail spaces with child care center on the upper part of the site. retail on the right side. next to the davis entry to the portal. then restaurant probably located on broadway and front. there is a view of the entry to the news. and i won't dwell on the plans here for lack of time, but i think the basic point here is that we've stayed well within the existing height limit on the site. in fact, stepping down to well below it on davis street about 45 feet. and then here is the view of the

building on front and broadway. i'm going to hand it over to aaron who is going to talk to you about more detailed information. >> good afternoon, commissioners. just a couple of points that directly relates to comments made by both the arc and the community. one, the current massing. historic compatibility. analysis of the frame and in-billed buildings. they show a regular pattern of frames and windows. the brick mass articulation is more rhythmic in character. it's applied to the building. they follow the regular pattern and the brick buildings have a more rhythmic window layout. you can see that we've stacked the windows. our materials have transitioned

from all-smnt projeccement and d brick, thin brick veneer to the buildings. if there is interestin intereste can pass around the material board for the commissioners to see more closely. fill in panel on the frame and in-fill where we have different colors articulating the frame and in-fill. around the courtyards thil be -y will be stucco. this is front street looking at the inspiration for pay more window-like connecting tissue between the frame and in-fill. at the senior building, stepping down, showing a variety of jewel yet balconies and our --

juliette balconies on the brick veneer. the comment last year was to regular projections so they've been stacked. furthermore, we tried to eliminate the vertical aspect of the projections by making them individual for the units so they fit in the frame. we think this emphasizes the horizontal aspect of the facade a little more. there is that corner view from front and broadway again. and then finally in the district there is a series of mid-block passages. we're working with ann dra wor e design for two mid-block passages, one running north north/south and one east/west. this is the entry past the cafe.

finally this is the entry from broadway on to the north/south mid block passage. thank you for your time. we look forward to your comments and responding to any questions you may have. >> thank you for your presentation. at this time, we're going to take public comment. does any member of the public wish to speak to the matter? if so, come forward. you'll have three minutes with the warning buzzer. 30 seconds before your time is up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jay wallace, good to see you all again. i'm here to support the project. i'm part of the development team at what was reported to the project across the street. we are 192-room hotel with a permanent theater at the corner of embark dar embarcadero and b. we're glad to have this building coming to be our neighbor. i've been before you before. i've been in the neighborhood

well-received. yesterday i had coffee at jackson and davis with the golden gate tenants association. our project and this project are two projects that have almost unanimous support. that is unusual in san francisco. i'm here to say thank you for your time. it's a great project. our hotel and theater project will be coming to you hopefully in the near future. we've been working closely with mr. frye and his division. all the concerns that the arc raised a year ago we've addressed. but this is a great project that i hope you'll support. >> does any member of the public wish to comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner pearlman. >> i want to thank you very much. having seen the project at the arc a year ago, i want to thank you for the work you've done. i think you've addressed all the

concerns very, very well. in particular, how you've set back the top floor on the broadway and front side. i really do appreciate the added brick because i know that was one of my concerns was the material that you had before. so adding brick i think is a great addition. also, i really appreciate the idea. i still love the senior's building. i think that is a very effective modern interpretation of the scale, the feel, the texture of the buildings in that district. i think that is very well-detailed and executed. even the stacking of the brick to make it different than the running bond patterns that are seen there that differentiates it, but it still has the feel of being very comfortable in the district.

let's see what else. i think it's an excellent choice. i know andy ko cochrane owes wok well so i'm anxious to see what she does on the project. i endorse what you've done. very much look forward to seeing this moving forward. >> thank you. commissioner hyland. >> i too agree with commissioner pearlman. we reviewed it -- >> i think i was there. >> you did respond to every one of our comments very well. i do want to make a few other additional comments. i think the thanls that wa -- as done on the project was fantastic. not only was the analysis well done, but incorporation of that analysis into the design was really, really -- you made it a stronger design. we had a concern on the cement pams fading.

i think the choice is going to alleviate that concern. initially there was strong opinions from the neighborhood to have a little more lack of uniformity. i think where you've landed is a stronger design than what was brought before the arc, so i appreciate you further developing that. i think the setbackbacks setbac. i still have concern on the cornice on the brick building. it still seems to light. but other than that, it's a great project. >> commissioner johnck. >> i remember the arc meeting that day. and even though i wasn't on the arc at that time, i attended that meeting because i've spent a lot of time with my involvement with the port

supporting the port of san francisco and all the planning efforts and projects and very interest interested in how the compatibility of the project has meshed with the northern -- northeast waterfront landmark district. so i was looking at that as pect as well as there was so much community concern and you've done an amazing job in coming up with what you have. it's -- if i can help -- soften the fact that it took so long and you had all these meetings, really, look at the testimony today. you had one person in support. i just think it's great. and i would say too, the setbacks have been good and the red brick, we had to do that. and i just -- before i make a

motion, i see mark piaz in the audience. mark, do you have anything further it say? i mean i figured you would. if there was still some issues. it looks great to me. so i'd like though move the supporting the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed work at ada broadway. >> i think we have more -- >> can i second? i wanted to add one comment. i'm familiar with the work of this firm. there is a building you did in mission bay that faces the creek that has always been, you know, i find the architecture there is a little bit boring, but the one building that stands out to me is the one by lety may and stacy. i see how these buildings are