may 22, 5:00 p.m., room 416. for that meeting we are confirmed to have a discussion about the department's retention policy for documents. we are also discussing internally how we can bring more zero 50 meetings and content for your meetings. next policy meeting april 9th at 5:00 p.m. in room 421. next operation committee meeting april 18th at 5:00 p.m. in room 421, also. >> thank you. any comments? any discussion? public comment? seeing none. next item, please. >> item 12 adjournment. the time is 7:04 p.m. >> thank you all. ♪ ♪

good afternoon. this is the historic preservation committee. the commission does not -- please silence your mobile devices that may sound off. when speaking before the commission, if you care to, state your name for the record. i would like to take roll at this time. [ roll call ] >> commissioners, first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time, members of the

public may address the commission within the subject matter of the commission september agenda items with respect to agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes. >> does anybody wish to comment on a nonaend a item? if so, please come forward. hearing none, we'll close public comment. >> that will place us under department matters. director's announcement. >> good afternoon. no formal report from the director this afternoon. eye would be happy to forward any questions you have for the next hearing. >> item two, review of past events of the planning commission and announcements. >> department staff just a few items to share with you this week. one is your recommendations regarding the pending districts for central soma area plan will

be heard at the planning commission on may 10th, next week. and as you know, the planning commission evaluates those proposed designations based on several factors related to bay area regional transit, any potential amendments to the general plan that may have to occur, along with a few other sort of broader policy findings, but we will certainly keep you posted on any comments they have and forward them to you before we transmit those recommendations to the board of supervisors with the full package. also, i passed out some -- the section from the budget and finance committee meeting, a report on cultural districts. this is related to the pending cultural district legislation response ored by supervisor

ronen. tomorrow, they are having a general discussion about next year's budget. i wanted to keep abreast of the information regarding the proposed legislation and the planning department mayor's office of housing, oewd commission will be there in attendance should the committee have any questions. we understand that the legislation is still being revised by several members of the community, a working group in the various city departments. we don't have any -- we don't have any revised language to show you just yet, but once we did, it will be brought forward to this commission. i also wanted to bring to your attention, as you may have seen in the paper, the full board did pass the resolution establishing the lgbtq and leather cultural

district located in the south of market neighborhood. this has been under revision for, i would say, almost a year, but this final resolution, the department's reviewed it. we think it looks fantastic. and as you can see towards the end, there are further duties or asks of this commission in your work-related to cultural heritage work and to support these districts as they move forward, which hinges on the passing of that legislation i spoke about. i wanted you to have a copy of what was passed in case you have questions. our cultural heritage specialist is happy to present or give you or the assets committee an update on that information at any time. and then finally, as you're

aware, we, along with the arts commission, filed a joint request for rehearing for the c of a related to the pioneer monument. we forwarded a copy of the joint brief we submitted, and we understand that the hearing will be scheduled at the board appeals on june 13th. so we'll keep you posted on that outcome. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. >> i just wanted to make a quick comment. i thought that was a -- the response letter was just very well researched and thought out. i was just very impressed with the depth of understanding of what is a very complex and complicated web of rules and things. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we can move on? >> very good. that will place us under commission matters. president reports and announcements. >> i don't have a formal report today, but i would like to, for members of the public and

commissioners, inform you that we had a request to continue item 9, the 3333 california street. so when we take that up, it may well be continued. >> commissioners, item 4 consideration of adoption draft minutes. >> any comments on the minutes? >> at this time, we'll take public comment on the draft minutes for april 18th, 2018. does any member wish to comment on the minutes? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. do we have a motion to adopt them. >> i so move. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been saided to adopt -- seconded to adopt the minutes. on that motion, commissioners. [ roll call ] >> so moved commissioners. motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places us on item 5.

commission comments and questions. >> that will place us end the regular calendar. the conserve ace district, this is for your initiation of a change in designation. >> if i could have the powerpoint up on the screen, please? good afternoon, commissioners. i'm department staff. item before you today is to initiate and recommend article 11 designation of the mint-mission conservation district and the change of article 11 designation of properties within the district as part of the central soma area plan. the mint mission conservation district was identified through the survey and is compriseds of industrial commercial and residential hotel properties constructed between 1906 and 1930. this district is a rare

remaining enclave of these building types. the district is notable as it a survivor of the extensive redevelopment of soma in the late 20th century during which much of the buildings dating to the period when the area was served as the industrial center was raised. the district was identified through the serv -- survey. it was post 1906 earthquake and fire reconstruction. this slide includes a map of the resources survey area. existing historic resources are in red, orange, and black and eligible resources identified through survey efforts are green and blue. the conservation district is located in the northwest corner of the study area. listed to the right are the outcomes of the survey efforts.

31 are eligible for the california register. 26 proposedded for a rating. the survey and historic statement was adopted on march 16th, 2016. in 2018, the commission recommended designation of three individual article 10 landmarks and one article 10 landmark district identified through the soma survey efforts. they include the pullman hotel, hotel utah, and iron workers ion none 77, and the warehouse district. the hpc recommended the change in article 11 designation of the 26 buildings noted on the slide. the mint mission conservation district includes 22 properties. the majority of which are not currently rated under article 11 or classified as category 5 or unrated buildings. one property is eligible for designation as a category one significant building and 15 as

category 4 or contributory. 3 designated as categories 1 and 2 significant and three category 5 unrated buildings will be located in the district. dpr forms included in your park et cetera provide photographs and an overview of the properties. please note in your case report and resolution the candy factory at 54 mint street was identified as an unrated building. this currently is designated category 1. that designation will not change. an updated resolution has been prepared for the commissioners and for the public and for public review. the candy factory are remain category 1. i have a copy of the resolution for the commissioners and it's also provided for the public's review. as mentioned, the district is compriscomprised of small and mm properties constructed between 1906 and 1930. the buildings reflect the evolution of land use patterns of the neighborhood dating to

the 19th century. the district embodies the function of the blocks south of market street which served as a transition zone along market street and the industrial uses to the south. the land use was replicated during the reconstruction following the 1906 earthquake and fire. the industrial and commercial buildings included in the district range in size from multi size warehouses such as the candy factory to 966 mission neighboring two story commercial structures. the district's buildings are smooth finished stucco or brick with some stucco and concrete. industrial buildings commonly feature cornices, flat facades, ornament and punch window openings. three residential hotels property type one common in soma are located in the district and include the 1915 chronicle hotel notable for brick work and tiles

and the piedmont in 1907. they featured storefronts and cornices. detail along the motifs and relief panels are found on the district's multi story buildings. the third residential hotel located in the mint mission conservation district is the 1907 oak wood hotel at 40 to 48 5th street. it's the only building category one. building is eligible for category one designation are mormon humidity al in scale and are corner properties and feature elaborate ornamenttation or architectural detail. the district also includes three currently designated category one or two significant buildings. much the 1916 remedial loan association and the 1907

california casket company. both pictures here the and candy factory is featured on an earlier slide. similar to category one, the properties proposed for category four ratings feature range of ornamentation from the carpet and drapery building featuring and 980 mission street to the modest character of the supply company located at 972 mission street. category four properties possess a high level of architectural detail and decoration but are located mid block, possess less ornate ornamentation. throughout the development of central soma survey, outreach efforts were connected beginning with the launch of the survey web page in 2014.

this was followed by public presentations during 2014 and 2015. most recently a public mailing notifying them of this hearing were sent out april 12th. staff provided technical assistance regarding the benefits including transferable development rights, the mill's act and use of the california historic building code and the responsibilities of designations such as the permit to alter as well as how the protections help fulfill policies outlined in the plan. in closing, the designation of the district fulfills policies included in the plan to recognize and protect the cultural resources. the policies include supporting the preservation of the resources, protecting significant heritage properties through designations to article 10 of the planning code and supporting the preservation that

reflect the legacy of the neighborhood f approved, a number of benefits are tied to designation, including eligibility for a transferable development rights, the mills act, and california historic building code. responsibilities tied to designation include the requirements and review process associated with permits to anotherrer. the department determines they might the eligibility requirements for conservation district designation and the properties meet the requirements for change in designation, from not rated under article 11 or unrated category 5 to categories 1, significant through category 4, contributory is wanted. staff recommends each initiate the designation and the change in article 11 designation of properties within the mint mission conservation district. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. commissioners, questions? >> i just have one quick

question. it's just out of curiosity. the old mint is neither included in this district or the adjacent district. i forget the name of the adjacent district. is that because it's a landmark in and of itself and you typically don't include that? >> we could have included it. i mean, there are some buildings that are both article 10 and article 11. it just seemed to make sense to have the article 11 districts ring around the mint, but yeah, it could have gone both ways. >> it overlaps, so it doesn't really matter. >> commissioner johnck. >> i really appreciate the staff's efforts to detail your outreach efforts, particularly your -- i'm going to call them house calls. explain the benefits of these designations, and what's been the success rate of reception to

that? have you been able to, you know, contact and actually speak personally with all of them? >> not all of them. notification and we've recently had several meetings with property owners. we had conference calls and in person meetings in the office, answering questions, once this process got underway. so we've had a got bit of contact with property owners and provided additional information on the benefits and requirements through -- and tdr program, mills act, and minor and major permits. >> that's terrific. great. thank you. >> commissioner matsuda. >> just a follow-up to that. we received in our packet this memo from mr. lee about some questions that he had specifically regarding the benefits. were you able to touch base with him. >> we met yesterday. >> great. then another question about the information contained in the case report. the second bullet on page 2

talks about the examination of 134 parcels and of the 72 were not documented. then it says because they were vacant or not eligible. so what happens in the case of vacancy? >> in the case of a vacant property or vacant site? >> yeah. >> if they're located within a district, they would be under the per view of this commission for new development along with code requirements. however, if they're outside of any of the districts, the central soma plan controls who apply to that location. >> okay. that's what i wanted to know. thank you. >> commissioner johnck. >> on the subject of notification of the owner, if it's possible, i would really like to see what it was that you sent them that explained what was going on and the benefits and so forth. that does come up from time to

time. i just would like to be up to date on what we're giving them. >> okay. >> thank you. if there are no further questions, we'll take public comment on this item. please come forward and you'll have three minutes. there's a warning buzzer 30 seconds before. >> good afternoon commission. so i represent a parcel of 3704035. it's right behind the old mint. my family has owned this building for over 40 years. my parents have passed away, but it is now owned by the three brothers. we would -- we also have a business we run out of the basement of the building, a security company. we have a vision that maybe ten years from now we might want to go up to match the surroundings buildings that are five stories, 12 stories tall. we don't want to have any

restrictions. not to say we're going to do anything. we love our building, but we would like to have that opportunity to be exempt from this conservation district. i have a handout i would like to present to everyone. then that's it. thank you very much. thank you for having me here. this is very important, and i would love to talk to this gallon on the side and have her come -- gal on the side and have her come to our office and meet with her and talk separately. we're concerned about the property. >> can you tell us your address again? >> 444 jesse street. right behind the old mint off jesse street. >> all right. thank you. >> is it okay to hand this -- >> sure. >> thank you so much. i appreciate that. thank you so much. that's all i have.

thank you. >> thank you. >> any other memmer about of the public want to speak in come forward. >> i'm craig rice. i'm one of the unit owners in 6 mint, which is item listed as 6. just that i bought into the area two years ago. this is honestly the first i heard of it. much the mailing that went out on the 20th. any way, no real general concerns about the creation of the district, but i have two detailed questions as a property owner. so one would be one of the benefits are the tdrs. menhow transferable are those? to adjacent parcels within -- across the city? in other experiences, they don't have -- they can't transfer far and may be of limited benefit if

the area is built out. i don't know if this is a question for commission or staff. other question is exterior improvements, the permit process for exterior improvements, we might have rooftop equipment, window replacements. i'm curious about the impact on routine permitting to exterior items that may be burned by the creation of the district. those are my questions. again, i don't know if that's for this commission or staff. >> we can ask -- after we finish public comment, we can ask staff to address your comments. any other member of the public wish to comment? please come forward. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm representing supervisor jane kim's office. we would like to express our full support for this designation of the district. we do hear the concerns of the one property owner who took the time out of their day here to be here today. but we do feel that the historic

preservation measures and part of the central soma plan are a necessary component of that plan and we're supportive of all of the designation that's are moving forward both today and the previous hearing and i think there might be a couple more in the future coming down the proverbial turnpike. we're supportive and we look forward to having the department reach out and explain as they have been in other areas the benefits as well as responsibilities of having that designation. so thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak to this item? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. i wonder if you could just respond to the questions about the tdr process and how that would be applied. then maybe just a little bit about the permit process for alterations. you can describe the minor permit alter as well. >> i will point out i did

francis mcmill inis in contact with -- mcmillan is in contact with them. [ stand by for change of captioner ]

>> it's very frightening. so i am really supportive of the

work that's been done to designate this area and encourage, of course, staff to continue communication with the property owners. i thank the property owners for accepting the responsibility. we're honored, ok. we're honored to have you. good. >> i want to add that being in a category for building, it doesn't prevent additions from being made though these buildings. it's possible to extend them. >> i move the resolution, but i don't have the resolution to initiate designation -- >> it's in our packet with the one change with the one buildinr what it was. it will continue to be a category 1 building. >> ok. i move the resolution to initiate designation of mission

conservation district. >> yes, i just had a comment and asked mr. frye if he could confirm. whether these buildings are in the district or not, they're still resources under sequa and would need to have similar evaluations and assessments to any changes that occur. having them as part of the district provides other benefits that you wouldn't have otherwise. the t.d.r.s for this district are an immense benefit that other historic properties in our city may or may not have. that's a really a great benefit. >> that's correct. >> we have a motion and a second. >> i did not hear that, thank you. >> very good commissioners. there's a motion that has been second today' to adopt resolutio initiate. commission black. >> jonck.

>> yes, highland,. >> so moved, commissioners, that passes 7-0. places us on item 7 for case number 17. 011-5755 at 1942 sutter street. this is a se certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon. the item before you is a request for certificate of appropriateness or horizontal addition and sod altercation at 1942 sutter street. contributor to the bush street cottage row landmark district. the two store over basement two-unit residents because designed in the italian eight style for the real estate associate in 1875. it's located in r.m.1. the proposed project includes the conversion of the basement

level to habit able space with six feet at the first-storey of the rear of the east facing cottage row. with a new residential entrance to the existing second unit. extending the bay massing on the eastside up one-storey and installing a total of 16 new double hung wood windows on the east facade. all alterations are on a secondary facade. staff is determined that the proposed records compatible with the charter defining features of the subject building in the surrounding bush street cottage row landmark district. all aspects of the historic character of the building would be retained and no spaces would be removed. as all work is proposed on the secondary facade. today staff has not received any

public comment in support or opposition to the project. staff recommends approval as it meets the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation with the following conditions -- that following the issuance of permit the project shall provide a timeline. during this phase of the construction the they will contact department staff to secretary site visit with the proposed demolition plans and determine whether stabilization programs shall be required to preserve the property. and the project sponsor shall complete a site visit with the staff prying to ak pansy in order to verify compliance with the improved project condition and conditions of approval. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor and i are available to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions? does any public --

>> you want to hear from the project sponsor? >> do you have questions? >> i'm mark english, i'm available to answer any questions you might have. >> great. that's what i thought. thank you. >> sorry. >> it's ok. >> so we'll take public comments on this item. does any member of the public wish to comment? if so, please, ex forward. seeing and hearing none we'll close public comment. >> i will make a motion to approve with the conditions stated. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to approve this matter with conditions as read into the record by staff on that motion commissioners black. >> yes. >> >> yes so moved. motion passes unanimously 7-0. and if i may through the chair, we're going to pull item 9 out of order for case number

2018-004346fed at 3333 california street. this was for your review and "commoditiescomment but we did a request to have this continued on may 16th. >> we have a request to continue this item? >> yes, we received essentially two requests. one was from the nominate or feeling that they would like some more time to be able to present to this commission on the proposed nomination, which we are amenable to and second director ram felt stronger he would like to be here during that deliberation of that nomination. given that the state commission hearing is not until the 17th, we have adequate time for this body to review it and forward those comments to the state commission before it is heard. >> thank you. so, commissioners, any comments? we'll take public comments on

this item. if you could focus your public on continuance, but obviously it's on our calender. anybody wish to comment on this item? >> seeing and hearing none we'll close public comment. >> do we need a motion. >> we need a motion to continue. >> i move we continue until the next hearing. >> thank you on that motion to continue this matter to may 16th. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and we will revert back to item 8 for case number 2018-003886coa the murphy wind mill certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon members of the commission. elizabeth of planning staff. the project before you is a

certificate of appropriateness for safety upgrades and alterations to the murphy windmill. they are located in golden gate parka jays enter to the great highway. the property is within a public zoning district and it opens the district. the subject property, including the wind mill, cottage and landscaped space around the two structure us was landmark 210 under article 10 of the planning code in may of 2000. the existing windmill is an eight-sided six-storey structure designed between 1905 and 1907. the windmill, as well as its companion was critical to the transformation of the area sand dunes into golden gate park. it continues to be a working mill until approximately 1935. authorized under a certificate of appropriateness in 2001, reconstruction of the murphy

windmill and renovation of the cottage was completed in 2011. during the seven years since the reopening of the windmill, safety issues have been identified through operator experience and a city commission safety survey. these issues were not for seen at the time of the rehabilitation authorized in 2001. the project before you proposes safety upgrades to the wind mill designed to comply with osha requirements. no alterations are proposed to the cottage. the project sponsor has a brief presentation but in brief, alterations proposed including, an increase to the gallery handrail to 42 inches, utilizing wood extenders. addition of a four inch high toe-kick where it meets the gallery deck. replacement of the gallery deck level, wood entry doors with weather resistant materials. insulation of l.e.d. lights at the main door at the entry. tie offs and cables.

additional bracing at the fan tale deck. replacement of the fan tail ladder of the same size and appearance. replacement of the existing interior wooden stairs with steel stairs, hand rails and guard rails and paneling. removal of small sections of the surface on all levels to allow for vertical head clearance and removal of the concrete water pump beds in the base in anticipation of creating space for an interpretive exhibit open to the public. both the removal of the water pump beds and redesign were approved in 2001, but were not implemented for budgetary reasons. in revealing this certificate of appropriateness, based on the requirements of article 10, staff has determined that the proposed work is compatible with the character defining features of the landmark and recommend approval with conditions. however, staff is concerned

about the proposed steel for the interior stairs and paneling proposed and finds this element of the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the historic structure. staff believes this aspect of the project should be revised and recommends the metal stairs be replaced in wood or clad with wood and the mesh paneling should be of a different but compatible material. and this continue is concluded in your motion. therefore, staff recommending the following conditions of approval to the certificate of appropriateness. prior to the issuance of building permits, the final material including the replacement of materials for the metal stairs and mesh paneling, will be forwarded by review by staff. the interior stairs should be replaced in wood or alternate low be clad with wood and the steel mesh panel replaced with wood or another compatible material. this concludes staff's presentation and i am available for questions. i'd like to introduce dan mower

of the rec and park department who is part of the project sponsor team as well. thank you. >> thank you. would you like to come forward, mr. mower. >> good afternoon commissioners, dan mower with the recreational and rec park. i want to thank elizabeth for putting such a great presentation together. we've been working with her on this the last several months and have found a lot of common ground moving forward on this project. i've been working on this project a long time. i started back in 199 1998 whee started to renovate the windmill when it was delap tated and pieces were on the ground. we had private partners on this project. over many years we were able to bring together a terrific design team and funding from a whole host of different sources public and private to bring the windmill back to its glory and i'm happy to report back in 2011, after you had approved the project we put the cap back on and operating the windmill. subsequent to that, our

statiostationengineer team opere windmill. there's not too many people that can operate the windmills in san francisco. during that course of six or seven years they point yo pointt safety issues. they brought in our heath and safety officer for the department. we conducted a thorough property of the structure and looked at ways of making it a safer structure for the operators of the windmill. so we have a long laundry list of miscellaneous items. the ones elizabeth brought up, were the ones considered as significant enough to be heard today. we did conduct that report and now looking forward to moving forward, had the necessary funding to make these improvements. so i'm happy to hear that all the improvements that are being recommended for your consideration staff feels are appropriate and should be able to move forward with. elizabeth brought up the issue

about the stairs and the cladding of the stairs, which was something we tossed back and fourth over the design and design development at this particular element. originally, we reconstructed stairs back to the original configuration and used some of the original materials part of the windmill staircases. unfortunately, they didn't meet code and they created some safety hazards for staff that had to climb up the six-storeys on a daily basis to maintain the wind i will mill. we brought together a brand new project team, architects from offices here in san francisco and i also recommissioned my historic architect that worked on the project originally to help us work through some of these issues. they're here today to answer any technical questions you may have on this particular item. in any case we looked at staircases and we wanted to make sure we got as close to code

compliant as possible. it meant we had to refigure the staicases. in doing so, we ended up looking at when we started to design that and do it, we found there was a lot of infrastructure that was being proposed on the ground floor to host all those decks and levels and stringers. and so in order to try to minimize that, they brought forward a proposal to do these stairs out of steel. one, it provides a higher level of accuracy on the development of the stairs, rise and runs rather than relying on craftsmanship. it allieviates issues for our maintenance staff moving forward. and it would remove some of the clutter created by some of the staircase elements that the flat forms would identify and so as part of that, the architect team

came back and said let's doing this out of steel and hanging the stairs where possible off beams on the floor above. one, it would remove the clout you arclutterand be a more durae and material to maintain overtime. and it would be co compliant with regard to ocsha requirement and the building code. i know that staff's recommendation is to look at considering either going to wood or cladding the stairs in wood. the department's position is we would like to go ahead with steel but as part of that, we spoke with planning staff and elizabeth and looked at options of maybe doing wood and steel framework. we have samples. hopefully the package was thorough enough to understand what we were doing and trying to achieve in this space.

and if not, staff here -- project team can answer those questions more specifically. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> at this time we'll take public comment on this item. does any member of the public wish to comment on this. hearing none we'll close public comment. commissioners, any comments? the stairs are not visible from the exterior, they're only visible on the interior of the windmill? >> right. >> they're being reconfigured anyway so to me it seems like a steel stair would be reasonable. i don't know what other commissioners think. >> i'd like to comment on that. as long as it's internal and it's only seen by staff and not by the public, it seems to me that the safety and the maintainance and long-term use of the building -- >> safety for the staff going up

and down if they have to go up six-storeys every day that makes sense. it doesn't make sense to clad a steel stair. that seems like a waste of money and an odd -- it would be an odd structure in my opinion. i agree that i would think that it would be a fine alternate. >> thank you. >> i agree with you two gentlemen, however, i can understand the desire to preserve the look of the thing and so since there's going to be potentially a display on the ground floor, is there someway that you can have photographs of what it looked like before? in other words, can you photograph the wood stairs and have that as part of your display so if someone wanted to understand what was there, it would be easily available and

then go ahead and make the steel staircase? >> not to get into the weeds on this, but the funding we're using was actually going to be the third phase of this project, which was to replace the pump mechanism and make an educational exhibit at the first floor. part of that and the vision is to open the first floor up through the threshold of the building, as approved by code, and have photographs and also monitors that give history of the windmill, wind power, renewable energy and talk about golden gate park in more detail. the end goal of this is to do a interpretive exhibit there, which can talk about the windmill history, its materials, design and where it's been. >> so the short answer to my question would be yes. >> absolutely. [laughter] >> the reason i pose that is because hopefully i am back in front of you to execute this

last phase of the project. >> thank you. >> i conquer with my fellow commissioners on the points here. my basic approach is this is interior for the safety of staff and to bring us up to code it should be steel. >> thank you. >> the interpretive would be great, yeah, i would love that. >> thank you, commissioner black. >> yes, i conquer the steel stairs makes sense. cladding them seems unnecessary. i support showing the photographs that exit now and also in the past as part of an exhibit because it's a really charming building that should be enjoyed and fully understood throughout its history. i am in support. >> thank you. >> commissioner. >> i guess i am the outlayer. [laughter] can staff explain a little bit more about where -- what is kind the conclusion on the wood stairs so we can understand a little more about the thought

process and maybe also explain what is involved in the cladding? i didn't quite understand if it's just providing wood treads or is there more than that? >> well, i think we would be working with rec park staff, if it would be tread materials or some alternative compatible material. i think in terms of the configuration changing and the openings in the floors of the windmill staff thought they would retain the integrity of the structure, but that the differration from going from the wood to the steel. i think that is in your packet on page 6 where the pretty big difference. the interior of the landmark, this is an interesting landmark designation so it was together.

it wasn't one of the more recent deg i guesdesignations. the interior is part of the landmark. it's interior is part of the landmark designation. there was just concern that it may not be compatible. >> right. and the wood stairs are a significant character defining feature of the windmill? >> they are. >> are they the original stairs? >> they're not the original stairs. they were replaced in the renovation but they were replaced in the original configuration and that was due -- and dan can talk more about this, for budgetary reasons. the reconfiguration and the change in the stairs was approved in the 2001 certificate of appropriateness but it wasn't undertaken at that time as part of the 2011 final approval. >> even though -- if we were to replace the stairs with wood stairs, they're still going to look pretty different. my concern would be that they actually, because they're going to be more clunky, then a steel

stair would be better. >> i wouldn't support cladding the whole thing in wood. i do think that having wood treads would be a good compromise. >> would that be solid or vainer? [laughter] >> solid. >> that's good. >> not vainer. >> could i ask a question about the weather out there and the weather tightness of the interior where the stairs are? i mean, is it -- do you have weathering problems on the interior? i assume it's not conditions safe? >> it's not a conditioned space. we haven't had a single leak since 201. 2011. so we're concerned about the dome and copper cladding on the dome as a weak point on the structure but so far so good. so, it's not a condition space

so -- >> i'm just asking about wood and the people -- the people working there and walking up and down if there's moisture on the stairs ever or is it always dry? >> it's always dry. >> my perspective it's been dry. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner hyland. >> yes, that was a comment on the stairs. my proposal, and we get to a motion, i was asked the commission to consider the wood treads as a compromise. i do have a question on the railing. is the public -- does the public have access to this level where the railing is or is it all -- ok. so what is driving the raising? first of all, i do a lot -- i have done a lot of these and i

would not have come up with this solution. this is a good solution. i wouldn't have considered this, so i think it's creative. but we're not -- we're not accommodating the four-inch -- we're not preventing anything further than just raising the railing. so my question is, is this necessary? does this top rail need to be replaced because it's in bad condition and can it stay at its existing -- >> so to answer that is we're trying to meet requirements as closely as possible but still trying to maintain the framework of a historical structure. the problem we had on the handrail is we had the cap dome and sale stocks being reconstructed in the netherlands while we constructed the tower here. when we tried to bring the two together we had to coordinate to make sure when the sale stocks were spinning we missed the railing on the deck. we had a tolerance of 18 inches

during the design phase and now that it's constructed, we can actually see the spinning of the sparse. we know what our tolerances are and we can raise the handrail up to meet that code compliant. even they we don't have a open, they require we have 42 inches and i believe it's no more than 16 or 18 inches between the rails. >> it's a maintenance. the four inches isn't required. >> beer tryin we're trying to ge as possible. given we know the exiting conditions, we want to achieve those goals. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioner, any further questions or do we have a motion? >> i would move that we approve with the condition or change the condition to wood treads. >> steel with wood treads. >> yes. >> i second. >> we have a motion and a second. >> just quickly --

>> can i ask a question about that. i'm still trying to get with this because i'm really concerned about the safety for the staff on this. i think they've met all the historic requirements that are important. so i guess i'm just trying to get my arms around these treads and what it means. >> they had some examples or if you could speak maybe to -- >> i real it was some discussion. >> any concerns about safety with the wood tread and -- >> can you speak to the microphone? >> so in the play box we have a sample of what would be a steel tread that would allow water and material to run through and also a sample of a solid wood, possible tread material.

>> do you have any concerns about the wood treads? >> we talked about that, you know, wear and tear with people walking with work boots. we talked about doing a metal edge on that. i believe there's a sample in the box there as well. >> i see it. >> yeah. so, it's blending materials. i'm willing to accept whatever you folks feel is appropriate along with staff. we want to make sure we have something that is durable and safe for the operators at the end of the day and compliant. >> all right. >> so i think -- our first option would be to do steel to keep within one medium. i'm happy to good wood if everyone feels it's appropriate maneuver for the project. >> can i add some additional comments. >> i think it's -- the treads are a significant mass in the stair. so having wood would really help tie back to the original stairs.

i think the use and the patina that will come on the stair will add to the character. so that is what -- >> can i ask a question. are these stairs that will be visible in the first floor where you have public access eventually? >> will they be visible? >> yeah. >> what about having the stair with the wood tread from the first flor to the second floor but the remainder just being a steel stair? i'm just asking whether you might consider that.

>> item 9 has been continued. places us on item 10. this is a legacy business application. >> hello, commissioners. preservation staff. today we just have one legacy application for your consideration. that's for knights catering located at 255mendell street. the indian basin industrial park. they are a family-owned business founded by ed and maggie mcgovern and their neighbor ozzie smith. it was purchase outright by them in 191 1969. then in 1996, the business was transferred to their son and daughter. this 2004, the daughter, maureen and her husband, bought the business and are currently the

sole owners. so the business continues to be a family-owned business. knights began as knights restaurant in 1963 at 234 mcalester street. this was a popular eatery in the civic center area. in 1978, the knights moved the restaurant and catering business to a larger location on golden gate avenue. then in 1989, the business was again moved to 550 alabama street. in 2001, the business was moved temporarily down to south san francisco. that move lasted several years, but by 2004, they were back in the city at their current location. knights catering qualifies for the business registry in staff's opinion. we wanted to note the roots are in the irish community and they traditionally have served irish

cuisine and participate in parades and events. staff is recommending that the physical features and traditions that define the business be listed as the full-service event catering and production coordination for presentations and events and drop-off catering service for large and small scale activities. then the team of wedding specialists, the nonprofit coordination, and the white indicate arerring trucks -- catering trucks. we did not have any additional recommendations. staff is recommending support of this application, and i believe one of the business owners is here to answer any questions. thanks. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm maureen kelly. thank you