>> president wolfram: calling this hearing to order. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation regular hearing for wednesday, august 1st, 2018. we remind members of the public that the commission will not tolerate any obstructions or outbursts of this time. please silencer mobile devices. we will take role at this time. [roll call] we expect commissioner hyland to be absent today. on the agenda is general public comment. this time members may address members of the commission. with respect to agenda items, the opportunity to address the commission may be afforded when the meeting is addressed -- the item is addressed in the

meeting. you have up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> president wolfram: does any member of the count -- public want to comment on any nonagenda item? seeing then, we will close this. 's benign we are at director's announcement. >> vice-president hyland: -- item two. >> good afternoon commissioners. a few items to share with you. first of all, please join me in welcoming the interns from our summer planning internship in the audience today. it is a 12 week program that started on june 4th. we won't -- it will end on august 24th. we have a total of 24 interns. somewhere high school students from the youth works program. all interns are placed -- paid. there is a wide priority -- variety of projects this summer and i will not go through all of them. but just to give you a better sense of the wide range of

planning issues, the interns are addressing, there is exploring process improvements related measures identified within the may oral executive directive, implementation of action rise plan and drafting water action plans can developing a better front yard program to address complaints and enforcement related issues regarding illegal paving and parking in a front yard setbacks and we have for preservation projects this summer. one is partnering with the chinese historical society to complete a chinese-american context statement which is a c. lg grant that we received this year. second is complete a russian historic context statement for the city. third is our research and survey the potential hate ashbury historical district that is also funded through the historic preservation fund committee and

is in partnership with san francisco heritage. and completing a historic architectural context statement related to the edwardian style. as part of the 12 week program, each in turn is paired with a planner who mentors and supervises their work. there is also weekly staff to suck -- discussions, site visits, presentations led by a variety of department members to highlight the work we do. in the final week of the program, they will present their final work products to staff during a noontime lecture series. i believe you will receive invitations to this lecture series as well if you do have free time. lunch will be provided. i am not sure if the announcements went out, but they did go out. the 21st creek 22nd and 23rd of august. finally, the department is very appreciative of all their work that they are doing -- doing and

we look forward to -- will look forward to support -- dividing our continued support for the program. tina is in the audience and she really makes the intern program what it is today and we really appreciate her work and her dedication to promoting education in the department. a few other announcements for you. one, if i have not mentioned this to you in the past, or i just wanted to give you a reminder, the request for hearing for the early days monument will be at the board of appeals, i believe it is on september 12th. i will present at that hearing and i will give you an update at the following hearing on the results from the board of appeals hearing. also, two weeks ago, i was at the national lions preservation commission forum conference in iowa. shelley was also present. there were over 700 attendees

from state, local and federal governments, commissions, staff, along with the parks service. i mentored a session on living heritage and shelley presented the city and the department's program along with the cultural heritage specialists from san antonio. it was a really well attended session. we got a lot of great feedback. there is certainly no shortage of other cities across the united states struggling with the same issue. there was a lot of excitement in the audience about the type of work that we are doing in other small cities like san antonio. they are addressing the issue at the local level. finally, just a reminder, the national trust conference is coming, and the department is sponsoring the intangible heritage tract. it also reminds me, we are sponsoring 50% off on

registration for all community members in san francisco. they just have to use a special code. san francisco heritage and the department have promoted this code. we are happy to forward that onto you as well. there will be more promotion on that as registration progresses. i believe some of you are also presenting as part of the trust conference and we will give you updates on the various events and sessions that the department is participating in along that track. >> president wolfram: what are the dates of that? >> i believe it is november 13th through the 15th. it will be down at the embarcadero hyatt. finally, related to that, there will be a trust live session around intangible cultural heritage here in san francisco. it will be a part two. part one will be in san antonio at their living heritage symposium that occurs the first week in september. i will not be at that hearing because shelley and i will be at

attendance at that symposium presenting more of the city's work. that concludes my comments. unless you have any questions. thank you. >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck? >> commissioner johnck: i am interested in the project at the interns were looking at to address sea water rise guidelines. could you tell me more about that? who is the staff person leading that. i am interested. >> i am not familiar with that project. [laughter] >> president wolfram: i think maggie is our sea level rise planner. >> commissioner johnck: well i can call her and talk about this. i do not need a full explanation. >> we would be happy to forward you some info on the project once it is complete. >> commissioner johnck: i do five i do a lot of work with the port. >> president wolfram: commissioner johns? >> commissioner johns: for those of you who have not been

able to attend one of the sessions for the interim reports, i highly recommend it. put it on your calendar. >> president wolfram: is seeing nothing further, we can move onto commission matters item three. i have no formal announcements but i want to welcome the ink -- interns to our commission hearing today. i hope you will find it interesting. we look forward to seeing your project reports at the end of august. >> clerk: item four, consideration of adoption of the june 6th 2018 hearing, and the regular hearing of june 20th, 2018. >> president wolfram: any comments on the minutes? commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: i have a very minor issue. on the arc, june 6th, on page 5 near the bottom, the

second paragraph, it refers to a significant work by the bay area-based world-renowned architect. bay area should probably be capitalized. pretty miner. >> president wolfram: ok. we will take public comment on the draft minutes of wednesday june 2018, and the a.r.c. on wednesday june 6th, 2018. if men beat -- any members of the public want to comment on the mission it's -- minutes, do i have a motion to cut approve the minutes? >> clerk: to adopt the minutes on amended. on that motion -- [roll call] the motion passes unanimously. 6-0. that places us on item five. commission comments and questions. >> president wolfram: commissioner perlman? >> commissioner pearlman: i want to disclose i had a

conversation on item number 10 on our agenda today. >> commissioner johnck: i was going to say the same thing. i had a tour in that conversation. >> president wolfram: ok. commissioner johnck? >> commissioner johnck: i went out on an invitation to the fraternal power station site -- site and towards that. >> president wolfram: ok. we have tennessee street on our agenda also. and we encourage anyone else on the commission to get out there to see it. it is really -- i was just out there this morning. it is really impressive. no any further comments or questions? we can move on. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. item six. the central so my plan. this is for plan. this is for your opportunity to consider amendments to the public benefits package. >> president wolfram: thank

you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am with the planning staff. i manage the land use and housing plan in a citywide policy division. i will hand it off. last time we were here in march, when you heard the plan, you heard from steve who was a planned manager for several years. he has left the department unfortunately. the stewardship of the plan has been passed on to lisa chen who is going to present the item to you. i will handed over to lisa. >> think you. good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the planning department. as josh noted, we were back here in march. at that time, on march 21st, the commission did not adopt a resolution expecting support for the central soma plan. i'm recommending that $15 million of the benefits package be out into the old mint. an additional $50 million for arts and culture programs. we are here to provide an update on the plan process.

as you no, the plan has been subsequently adopted at the planning commission on may 10th and forwarded to the board of supervisors. since that time, there has been a number of hearings at the board of various committees. and has been at the world committee on july 9th, and at the land and use transportation committee on july 16th and 23rd. you may have heard from various stakeholders about some of the changes that came out of those hearings. we wanted to highlight the out of those hearings. we wanted to highlight the evolution of the proposal to fund the old mint. that was in the draft plan as adopted on may 10th at the planning commission. as you may be aware, when the first plan was released in 2013, a benefits package did not include funding for the old mint. as of late 2015, which is roughly four years into the planning process, there was still no formal proposal to allocate funding to the mint. at that time, the plans were for preservation strategies and focused on expanding article ten

districts, landmark designation of individual buildings, and creation of the transferable development rights program or tdr program in the plan area. subsequently, due to advocacy for the preservation community at various hearings and at public events, $50 million for the mint was proposed by staff in late 2015. as we are going to the plan refinement and public engagement process. this was in spite of the fact that the building is outside of the plan area and is geographically removed from the bulk of the developments that were going to be paying into the tax that will be funding this purpose. this was subsequently increased to $20 million in the 2016 draft central soma plan. that was based on staff understanding of the overall community needs at that time. that was the amount that was ultimately adopted at commission, planning commission and forwarded to the board. i will note that in the 2016 plan, there is $20 million in

historic preservation benefits to a t.d.r. program. $45 million for programming and capital facility to support nonprofits, which could also go to arts and cultural organizations, and $180 million to preserve and create production distribution and repair space. it could also be used by arts organizations. once it got to the board, at the july 23rd land-use and transportation committee, as you may be aware, supervisor came did introduce some amendments to the benefits package to create a new 10 million-dollar pdr relocation fund. this would be to support p.r. businesses in the area and to mitigate the potential impacts of displacement as the neighbourhood redevelops. as you are probably also aware, supporting p.r. businesses in the area and ensuring no net loss of jobs is a key policy goal of the larger plan. in order to create this 10 million-dollar funds, the supervisor proposed returning

the contribution from central stoma to the old mint, back to the 2015 funding proposal, which was $50 million. in addition to lowering funding for environmental sustainability and resilience by 5 million. you have before you the revised benefits package. it will project it as well. this shows the change allocation of funding from, as i mentioned, from the old mint at $5 million, and environmental sustainability and resilience, at $5 million, from a couple different projects to this new p.d.r. relocation fund. i will note that this benefits package is illustrative. it is based on expected revenues from development from the next 25 years. it could very.

further, it is non-binding. as revenues come in, they will be allocated to the public benefits categories as shown in the percentages here in the pink line on the table. they won't -- there will be flexibility through the plan implantation and capital planning process to move funding around within each individual category, based on project readiness and other, based on project readiness and other opportunities that may arise. at the hearing, a number of stakeholders provided public comment, expressing support for finding the mint at the level that was adopted by the planning commission. and supervisor tang asked for more information on how the proposed funding reallocation was decided. and response, supervisor kim noted her office review the entire package with the planning department staff, in order to evaluate how to potentially reallocate the funding to the p.d.r. location fund. the supervisor acknowledge the old mint, and all of the other projects was with -- and the public benefits project were important and served a public purpose. she also noted there are competing funding needs around

the area not all projects would be able to receive the full or requested funding level. i will also note that the office of economic and workforce development has been actively working on a plan to identify capital needs and the future uses of the mint. it will include a plan for raising funds from a variety of sources. not just central stoma. just enclosing, i wanted to highlight some of the dates to come. it is a very complex and long process. the next milestones are after the board at recess, we will be returning to the full board for the hearing on september 4th. we will be back at the planning commission on september 6th, where they will be sharing subsequent amendments made at committee. we will have our next hearing back at the land use committee on september 10th. we were -- we are tentatively scheduled for december -- september 12th at the

government audit and oversight committee, and we'll be having other dates at the full board and possibly at the committees to be added at a later date. thank you. i am available for any questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. i actually attended attended the land-use hearing with supervisor kim and she introduced her amendment. i asked for this item to be added to our calendar today because we did write the letter, but i thought it would be useful, looking at the resolution that we provided previously, we just stated we believed them into funding should be increased from 20-50, at at the land-use hearing, supervisor kim repeatedly said, it is too much money. the $20 million is too money -- too much money for just one building. she referred to it many times as just one building. i thought it would be useful for us if the other commissioners concurred to provide -- write a letter stating the reasons we felt that the amount that we recommended -- we actually recommended $50 million, but

they want to be more specific about the reasons the mint isn't -- is an important structure to recommend the funding in the original plan. before we do that, we should take public comment on this sight and. it is under commission night -- matters, but it is an important topic. would any member of the public wish to speak to this matter? if so, please come forward. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for taking public comment on this item. i was not sure you would do that. i am an architectural historian and i have been following the mint closely since 2002 when the city required it for one dollar. i want to commend this commission on your strong stance on march 21st. for your unanimous resolution requesting at least $50 million for the mint. at four or five other hearings of the planning commission earlier this year, those commissioners also suppressed -- express greater support for the

old mint. not to this specific dollar amount that this commission did. i read monthly to chronicle support -- subscribers. the old mint is a most significant building in the central so much today. when completed in 1874, california was only 24 years old. the building was a built -- a source of tremendous pride for all san franciscans. not any longer. although progress has been made for the mint restoration, we cannot let neighbourhood politics take priority over this national historic landmark. it is important to envision how a revitalized mint can serve as a catalyst for revitalization. but to realize that, the city, as owner of just this one building, must invent in the mint's future. it is somewhat discouraging to hear about competing funds for

one building in this area, when the overall community benefit package derived from the central soma plan is expected to be in excess of $2,000,000,000.20 million is one percentage of that, for a building that has been neglected for many decades. so whether it is through the community benefits package, or other avenues, it is for you as city officials to decide the mint's future. i asked the commission to do all it can to express support of the revisitation of the city's most valuable city-owned historic building. also, there are other specific questions about numbers and funding. we hear a lot of things where it is always involving -- it is hard to know what is wet but we have heard at one point, that there were 70 million unprogrammed dollars as part of this plan. i don't know if that is still the case, but i would urge you to investigate and request

everything you can for the mint. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i don't have prepared testimony. i did want to thank president wolfram and commissioner johnck for testifying at the hearing last monday, and for commissioner george commissioner johns for exhibiting comment as well. i do not need to remind you that the old mint has been one of the most vexing and retractable preservation challenges this city has ever encountered, in addition to being one of the most significant buildings on the west coast. heritage has long viewed to the passage of the central soma plan, and the potential funding, to be secured through community benefits funding, as a once in a generation opportunity to secure local matching funds from the owner of this building, in order

to leverage other funding sources to, once and for all, secured the mint's future. i will concur with katherine's comments, ants thank you for putting this on the agenda today. >> president wolfram: thank you. does any other member of the public wish to comment? seeing none, we will close public comments. commissioner matsuda? >> commissioner matsuda: thank you. i have a you. i have a question for staff. thank you for your presentation. i wanted to ask if you can provide further information. when we look at the central summit benefits package on the summary at the dollars, you said that funding can shift. to monitor statically i am just worried about shifting. it starts to chip away more of the monies that are allocated for the mint. >> that's a great question. you may be familiar with some of our other impact fees sources that are raised by other area

plans. those are currently programmed through the capital planning process. everything that is ultimately authorized will be approved by the board of supervisors. they are advised by our inner agency plan implementation committee. it is an inner agency working group that essentially looks at capital planning needs in all of our area plans. they are supervised by staff and the community advisory committees. they provide funding recommendations that are taken up by those other groups. there will be plenty of continued opportunities for public discussion, as well as adoption at the board. >> president wolfram: if i could, i think that point about this being non-binding, my recollection, correct me if i'm wrong, there are larger categories that are in the pink

bands if you will, affordable housing transits. those percentages are established, but the line items underneath that can vary somewhat over time. part of the reason for that, these are projections. we do not know if these dollar amounts will come in. it depends on the development climate and so on. there has to be flexibility within each category. by the percentages are set by legislation. is that the percentages are set by legislation. is that correctly. >> that's correct. absolutely. we are trying to have it both ways. this is learning from past area plans where it is a very prescribed list of projects. we have heard and limitation projects that binds our hands in some ways. there was a request to create some structure but then also great flexibility. the change opportunities may come up that require funding. often, if there any substantial changes to this public benefits

package, that would also need to be reviewed by the public as well and ultimately approved by the board. >> president wolfram: i'm curious. one thing that seems odd to me when i saw this, there is a category called production distribution repair. but the p.d.r. relocation fund is not in that category which seems odd. it's an cultural preservation and community services. >> that is a good point. it is a bit of semester semantics. what you see now under the p.d.r. bucket, that is actually being provided by new development. as you know, it has a replacement requirement for the existing p.d.r. in the plan area. centrosome i had also originally envisioned that all large office projects would be supporting this as well. the p.d.r. relocation assistant fund, it could easily move that up to the p.d.r. category but it is coming from a different funding source.

>> president wolfram: have businesses been identified that would be needed in this fund? >> that is also an excellent question. we have been working closely through the business development program. they have a person who is dedicated to supporting the p.d.r. sceptre. she certainly works with businesses right now that are going through relocation and are worried about paying their rent at a new place or worried about the relocation costs. we have heard on a larger city scale, to the p.d.r. districts, about this need. i think what your question is getting at, is this is a line on the table. we really do want to flush this out further and have some idea of what this program would fund and how many businesses might use it. [please stand by]

>> and so, you know, and it was a question that supervisor kim

grappled with. we certainly understood the need or the desire to create this relocation assistance fund. and if i could on just that point, part of the reason is that unlike residential development, older residential development, we cannot do commercial rent control, so there's a requirement to relocate or to replace p.d.r. businesses, but that doesn't mean that they would be relocated at the same rent. so it's a challenge if we're trying to maintain businesses in that neighborhood, but the rent -- the rent is a huge challenge. so that's, i think, the reason for her creating this fund. then, the question was okay, where does the money come from, right? which category should we kind of switch around and reduce in order to create this fund, and that's what she struggled with. i certainly understand from your point of view why it was important. she was looking from her point of view other places to get it. >> well, right underneath the line for the u.s. mint is

preservation of the historic building. aside from one building, it looks like there's numerous buildings. >> if i may mention, this total benefit package encompasses both the value of what development would provide as well as what would come from fees or from the special taxing district. so, for example, the biggest item on affordable housing, some developers will choose to put that on-site, some will pay a fee, but that's the total value on that. this is eventussentially a wri down of their development. that's why it's included in this package. >> well, thank you. >> commissioner johnck? >> commissioner johnck: there's no question in my mind that this commission should go on regard with a very strong statement about the mint, and we started a partial discussion of that back when we were

looking in march as the staff refreshed our memory about. i think we've been very consistent in our attitude and need for -- in the central soma for historic preservation, and we've been on quite a very good trajectory i felt because it's so critical. you know, in fact, i'm sort of shocked. here, as you looked at the categories, we have cultural preservation and community services in the same category, so i would even say one of our statements that cultural preservation, historic preservation should be a separate category because that would even be a part of a letter that we sent, whether those are any opportunity to switch around the categories. and i would even recommend, to, that we make some statement in our letter, that we would add to why we think this is so important because of our track

record in historic preservation in this neighborhood. and i think if we can pick up on any of the letters or comments that have already gone in on this and add to ours, i would, you know, recommend that, so that's my idea on this topic. >> president wolfram: all right. thank you. commissioner johns? >> commissioner johns: if i could sort of rest on daniel webster's opening in the dartmouth college case. it is only one true, but those of us love it. it is only one building in the neighborhood, but i think it is also by far the most significant building in the neighborhood. and i think it's true whether you look at it from the point of view of it's development and the development of the economic system of the west, if you look at it as far as an extremely

fine example of 19th century architect's use of building techniques which allowed it to survive the 1906 earthquake by essentially floating. if you look at it in so many different ways, it is so important to san francisco that i think it -- excuse me, i think that we should press as diligently as we can so that this building does not just sit and deteriorate. now, i know the city has, over the years, expressed very little interest in this because there has always been something that people felt was a little more pressing in need. but eventually, it will just fall down. so i -- i think that the letter is -- is the way to go. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner matsuda? >> commissioner matsuda: i totally agree. i'm still a little worried about this. i understand and appreciate

your response, but because the mint is in the state that it is, i'm just worried that within this category it'll get continued to get pushed back and back and back, and the moneys that are in there since it's soft will continue to get chipped away. that's a huge concern of mine. i would like that to be monitored. how can we assure that there will still be money to complete this project. cultural preservation and community are lumped together, but as i look at this, there's a category for cultural and social programming that's $25 million, and i don't want that taken away from preservation. so i'm -- [inaudible] >> that one's going to have to cross a line. >> commissioner, i think what we can do is commit to making sure that you are informed as

the funds become available in the future as to what the specifics are in terms of the capital budget and the capital plan. and -- you can certainly, if you like, emphasize that in your letter that you want to maintain that connection to this and ensure that you are informed about it. as lisa said, there will be a number of forms when this money to budget this comes forward. the capital planning committee that i sit on makes those decisions every year, as well as the board of supervisors and the mayor. >> i'd like to request that. >> this funding, whether it's 15 or 20 million is just a fraction of what it's going to cost to rehabilitate and restore the mint. in the process of raising additional funds, there's some knowledge that the city, as the owner, is actually providing some funding. and the more it gets chipped away, the more difficult assist going to be to raise that money. it's sort of like the foundation. when you have those n.p.r., the

matching grants, that's an incentive. and when that matching grant gets chipped away and whittled down, it'll continue to deteriorate and more money is going to continue to get waken away in the future. so i think it sounds like we have a consensus to write a letter, and i guess we could say the main points would be to reiterate some of what commissioner johns said about the significance of the building, i think would be one point. i think the issue about the mint being a community catalyst as a revitalized building i think is important to state. it's significant to the city and the neighborhood. other points? >> i think it's got national significance. >> president wolfram: national significance. >> not just community or city as well. >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck? >> commissioner johnck: i spent a couple of days with an organization called the stone foundation, and we spent a good

amount of time talking about the mint. the mint, to me, is talking about -- picking up on some of commissioner johns' statements, it's significant. it's significant because it's a metafor in the west, its significance and its location. it's been documented, no question about that. in fact i'd be interested in taking one of kathrin's tour particularly on the use of materials. particularly as a cultural landscapist, that's another point that i think would be good to speak about. >> president wolfram: submissioner, that would give you an outline -- >> tim frye, planning department staff. i've taken notes on all of your comment including public comment, and i can have a letter ready for your signature

hopefully by the end of the week. does that give us enough time, lisa, if we have it by the end of the week? okay. >> president wolfram: okay. great. thank you. anything further? thank you very much. we can go to the next item. >> clerk: very good. that'll pose us for items posed for continuance for item seven at 175 golden gate avenue. this is a planning and zoning code amendment and it is proposed for continuance to september 5, 2018. i have no speaker cards. >> president wolfram: does anyone wish to speak to the continuance of this item, seeing none, i close public comment. do i have a motion? >> i move to continue the item. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, on that motion to continue -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0, and

places us on your consent calendar. this is considered to be routine by the historic preservation commission and may be acted on by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no public comment on this item unless a member of the preservation commission requests, in which case, it will be placed on a future calendar. item 8, 2684 mcallister street. >> president wolfram: does any member of the public wish to recovery room this item from the consent calendar? any commissioners? do i have a motion to approve the consent calendar? >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt a recommendation for approval -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion is pas us unanimously 6-0, and

placed us on your regular calendar for item nine, at 1001 tennessee street. this is a certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners, jonathan memmer, department staff. matter before you is a request for appropriateness. origin originally constructed for an industrial use, a number of changes have been made to the exterior. as proposed, the project would replace this t-111 only at the south location with corrugated metal. it was popular used in building in san francisco in the 1920's, and is widely found throughout this district including 1025

den ten stre den -- tennessee street. the department has received four letters in opposition to the project, each of which express concerns the corrugated metal is not an appropriate material and instead suggested a different material akin to the panelized system currently found on the building's front facade or a more standard hardy plank. copies of each are being disseminated. staff contends that i say missed on precedence set by the department and the commission, such alternative materials may be appropriate for new construction, but 10001 tennessee, while noncontributory is an existing building over 50 years in age. as such, precedence suggests the use of painted woodsiding or corrugated metal. staff finds that either would be appropriate. as proposed, staff has determined that the proposed work will not alter the character defining features of the landmark district. it will be in compliance with

the article 10 of the building code and the secretary of interior standards of rehabilitation. based on that analysis and that found in the case report, staff therefore recommends approval. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and i believe project sponsor is here as well. >> quick question for you. is this a parking lot -- property line wall? >> it does -- it is a property line wall. >> president wolfram: okay. so if there was a building built on the adjacent lot, this would be concealed. >> yeah. >> can i ask -- >> president wolfram: yes. >> clarify that because i think there's a driveway that goes to the warehouse on the opposite block. so you can kind of see there's a driveway that goes down to a warehouse door. so is that part of the property

on the other side, 'cause then that may not get covered up. >> well, it was a lot line, regardless. >> no, i know. but if that's a driveway that's going to a building that's on third street, that may not get covered up. >> a t-shaped lot. >> yeah. that's what i was trying to get. >> but it's still a lot line condition. >> president wolfram: okay. does the sponsor want to make a presentation? and is five minutes enough for your presentation? >> good afternoon, commissioners. after speaking -- >> president wolfram: can you move the microphone down a little bit. >> after speaking with the neighborhood and receiving those letters, i did a little bit more research on a product that wasn't a hardy board and

found this -- [inaudible] >> -- which is actually made of portland cement and can take a similar finish in terms of clear sale -- sealers and things like that. i know in article ten, one of the preferred materials is cement or concrete block, so to use this material that is portland cement and can get a similar look, this is the other product i would like to propose. but my main goal is just to stop water intrusion in this building, which is -- we are having a pretty serious case of that. all right. that's all. >> can i ask the project sponsor a question? >> president wolfram: yeah. >> how is that board -- 'cause the facade of your building has kind of square rectii linear

panels. >> it's four by eight panels, exposed fastener. >> so it would repeat basically the facade. >> the facade would repeat around to the south elevation, yes. >> that's great. thank you. >> president wolfram: all right. thank you very much. should we take -- we can take public comment on this item. we've just been receiving letters, so i imagine there's some members of the public wishing to speak on this item. if you wish to speak on this item -- >> my only -- i'm the property owner. sarah memorial. thank you for hearing this case. my only concern here is to fix the leaks and to make my neighbors happy. so whatever that takes, it would be my goal. >> president wolfram: all right. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> president wolfram: members of the public, you'll have three minutes and there'll be a warning buzzer 30 seconds before your time. >> i get very nervous, so i have --

[inaudible] >> -- prepared comments. bear with me. good afternoon. my name is connie shannon. my husband and i own the victorian, which is the contributing property. i'm here because metal cladding is an inappropriate cladding material for this project. i'm here because i do not want the use of this material on the south wall to set a precedent for the -- our property line on the north wall. my driveway, which is my driveway, which was once a -- part of a small street called kentucky place in dogpatch. the metal is an inappropriate material fore a number of reasons. corrugated material is not a preferred cladding by your own design guidelines for commercial properties. so i have the south wall elevation. i don't seem to be able to bring at some point, but the project as proposed would create a prominent corrugated

wall 100 feet deep, almost 40 feet call at the street elevation and 20 feet at the step down. there's only one corrugated contributing property in the district built in 1929. it's historically appropriate because it is similar to the design of the larger scale corrugated buildings in pier 70. its highest point at its peaked roof is 30 feet, with finestrations. because it's more -- a more economical treatment, this would be the second corrugated metal treatment used within a 100-foot radius of the project within the last few years, by approval it, it will have the cumulative effect by creating a corrugated metal streetscape and have a corrugated metal

redefine the aesthetic in the dogpatch. 1001 tennessee is not a contributing property. so please do not approve the use of the corrugated metal and give the project sponsors other options. allow them to use alternate engineered products similar to those approved on other new projects allowed to be used in the district. allow them to use a cement type product and it's consistent with other contributing commercial properties in tone and texture. may i keep going on? >> president wolfram: you have 30 seconds more. >> or if you find the wood design more appropriate, allow them to use a tongue in groove engineered wood product like hardy board siding. you save for new construction and it's the same extension for modifications to existing buildings. new construction in a contrary

yet compatible i hdiom is encouraged. prior to the establishment of the live-work district, a 50 foot tall -- we have a lot of history, our little property. we had a 50 foot tall live-work project that was constructed on our property line, dwarfing our little victorian, so please make the neighbors happy and make that a much nicer looking wall. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. do other members of the public wish to comment on this item, please come forward, seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner black? >> commissioner black: first of all, i want to acknowledge when there's residential structures and residential scale and commercial structures and scale, that can sometimes

lead to some incompatiblities. i also, moreover, want to appreciate the owner's responsiveness and the sponsor's responsiveness to the neighbors. one of the illustrations given showed the t 111 siding as currently applied on the building, and it's unlovely -- i don't know a better way to cry cry -- describe it. part of that is because of the way the sheets collect sun, and it looks pretty awful. and i'm a little curious about this new material. i would -- i was concerned about the corrugated metal, as well. how is that going to be seamed? because that can look okay and it can look terrible, and i'm

curious how these -- you mentioned that there are fasteners. is there a rivet in between? >> look at the front facade. i think their illustrations of the front facade blo. >> commissioner black: it would be the same sort of pattern, and you would carrie the fastening -- carry the fastening side around? yeah, i'd support that. >> president wolfram: commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: to the project sponsor, i very much appreciate that you're willing to make the neighbors happy. that is a rare thing. and to the neighbor, i appreciate your concern. i used to live in the area, so i know the situation quite well, and that's why i was commenting about the driveway going down, that it may be even if a building is built on that parking lot, that side will still be able to be seen.

so i think that the corrugated metal is inappropriate there. there is a building, a new building just on the other side of that parking lot where they put corrugated metal on the first floor of a residential building, and it looks absolutely -- it looks absurd because, you know, essentially, it's married the vocabulary of industrial with the vocabulary of the victorians across the street and it's kind of a bastard child. i agree that this would start to set a precedent. i agree with commissioner black about the pattern board and keeping the same patterning. i think it is be very quiet and innocuous and make everybody happy. >> president wolfram: do you find this to be an acceptable

choice? >> details, maybe we'd want to have some conditions in there as well, changing material, standard conditions of review for final details, maybe a mock up visit. >> president wolfram: yeah, i think that would be appropriate. all right. do you want to make a motion? gl i'd like to make a motion to allow the project sponsor to -- [inaudible] >> -- and have a condition of approval that includes staff review of the detailing. >> president wolfram: so the motion would be approving the certificate of appropriateness but with those modifications -- >> with modifications to the cement board material. that would be the motion. >> president wolfram: good idea. >> thank you. >> president wolfram: can we have a second? >> second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve the certificate of appropriateness with modifications for

substitute materials and for staff review on details. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, placing us on item ten, case number 2015-13303 ca, this is a certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners, rebecca salgado, planning department staff. this is located on the east side of battery street between green stratand vallejo street. the property is located within the northeast 10 landmark district. the property was initially constructed as a two story building in 1917 and received a

third story in 1938. the proposed scope of work includes exterior and interior alternatations and change from a commercial-industrial space to a museum. it includes the creation of a wider main entrance, the rehabilitation of the remaining historic steel windows at the first and third windows, and the replacement of nonhistoric aluminum windows at the second floor. the project also includes the construction of a one story rooftop addition with cement plaster cladding. the project also includes the creation of two covered set back terraces at the rear elevation at the third and fourth floors and interior alterations on all floors of the building. staff finds that the proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements of article ten and the secretary

of the interior standards for rehabilitation. although the project involves a change from the property's historic use, the project's large floor plates and windows are well suited to the new use as a museum. although the proposed modifications to the first floor of the battery street facade will alter the facade from its current historic condition -- the new larger opening at the first floor is compatible with the character of the building and the surrounding northeast waterfront landmark district which contains many historic industrial buildings with large ground floor entrances to accommodate the loading and unloading of goods and materials. the proposed rooftop adick is set far back from the facade of the building and will be only minimally visible from a

right-of-way. the proposed changes to the rear elevation will not remove any character defining features of the building and will not be visible from a public right-of-way. the proposed interior alterations will retain a majority of the building's heavy timber columns of the first floor which are a character defining feature of the interior. staff's preliminary recommendations for this project is for approval with conditions. staff recommends one condition of approval for planning staff to review and approve shop drawings for the new multilight windows to be installed at the battery street facade. no public comment has been received since packets were submitted. this concludes my presentation unless the commission has any questions, and the project sponsor also has a brief presentation. >> president wolfram: thank you. any questions for staff? okay. would the project sponsor like to come forward. >> commissioners, larry badner,

badner urban planning. i've got two other people involved in the project. i'd like to turn it over to mark to briefly tell you about the museo, and then i'll get into the design of the project very briefly. >> thank you, larry. good afternoon, commissioners. the museo, which i'-- was found 40 years ago and has operated as a free admission museum continuously since that time. for the last 3830 years, museo's been located at fort mason center. the mission of the museo is

twofold. first to research, collect and display works of italian and italian american artists. secondly, to promote educational programs in history, culture, and art with a view towards preserving the heritage of italian americans for future generations. we approached this mission by doing the following. first, by curating and exhibiting celebrated art exhibitions, normally, three to four each year. we also, from time to time, will curate significant historical exhibitions on topics of italian american history, particularly here in the san francisco bay area. we have year-round italian language and literature courses. we have lectures and film

programs throughout the year, and we have a child outreach program, we call ciao, children's italian american outreach where our programs are held in public schools throughout the city. the 940 battery street building was generously donated to the museo by jerome kokutsa, a long time patron. this will allow for significant expansion of the gallery space and museo programs and more importantly will introduce an income producing element for the museo so that it becomes a formality of