>> i will remind members of the public, commission do not tolerate disruption or outburst any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and speaking before the commission, state your name for the record. i like to take roll at this ti

time. [roll call] we do expect commissioner johnck to be absent today. first is general public comment. members of the public may address commission on items that's within the commission except agenda items. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> president hyland: any member which to address the commission on nonagendized items? seeing none, close public comment. >> director's announcement. >> good afternoon. congratulations to our three newly reappointed commissioners. thank you for spending more time with us. we appreciate it. thank you for that.

i wanted to mention, you probably have heard that there are a number, the number is 200 bills in sacramento right now dealing with housing issues of one sort or another. we're trying to sift through the ones we think are most relevant. most important is the one put forward which is sb50. i want to call your attention to next thursday at the planning commission, we're having an informational hearing on that. it will be going out to the commission on public on friday. i'm happy to share that. it is very likely to change. partly because there are provisions in the bill that are to be defined which very clearly sort of still some gaps in the bill. at this point, it was important. the planning commission had the hearing and we are happy to amend that analysis as it goes

forward. we will share that with you this week. we're sifting through the other bills to see which ones we have time to do analysis. hopefully some of those will fall by the wayside so we can narrow the field what we have to do. we'll share that with you. thank you. >> can someone send the analysis to all of us? >> absolutely. >> did the analysis include the housing accountability act? >> yes, there's a -- that has been expressed about the relationship between this bill and the housing accountability act. >> thank you. >> president hyland: seeing nothing further, we can move ton to item two, staff report and announcements. >> just couple of items. one is the yesterday's board

hearing, both sunshine and roosevelt schools were passed again. that's the second reading. they're off to the mayor's office for signature. we'll open keep you posted. second is your certificate of appropriateness and the conditional use authorization and categorical exemption for your project on buchanan street was appealed. we will be reporting back to you on the outcome of that appeal. that concludes my comments. >> president hyland: move on to commission matters. item three, president's reports and announcements. >> i have none. >> item four draft minutes for the architecture review committee hearing for february 6, 2019 and regular hearing for february 20, 2019.

commissioner wolfram. >> commissioner wolfram: only comment i have that in the a.r.c. minutes there's lot of extra os. i don't know if you noticed on page 3 of 7. there's an extra o and it happens under page 4 item 3. that was my only comment. i thought that was strange formatting. page 33 item 2 in the middle of the paragraph and page 4 item 3. >> i see. clerical error. >> president hyland: any member of the public wish to comment on the minutes, a.r.c. or h.p.c.? closed public comment. bring back to the commission. >> i move to adopt the minute.

>> second. >> thank you on that motion to adopt the minutes for februar february 6th, a.r.c. meeting. motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing you on item 5, commission comments and questi questions. >> president hyland: comments or questions commissioners? mr. john's. >> commissioner johns: when we had that meeting with the planning commission, there was some things we could be doing to work little bit more effectively and efficiently with them. i want, do we settle on a plan or procedure for changing our

ways. >> president hyland: i had the same question. i believe there was a follow-up memo that's forthcoming. >> we're working on a memo on what commissioners can do and what procedures we can change to follow-up on those issues. >> president hyland: should we agendize it for conversation? second hearing in april? then, add on to that, the item that we had last hearing on the citywide survey, we have an update on that as well? is there an update on what the next steps based on the agenda. >> it was informational agenda item last hearing. >> yes, thank you for bringing that up. commissioners, we are going to the planning commission at their april 4th hearing to give them

the same overview presentation. we are receiving some requests from supervisors for briefings. i believe our next check in with you is end of the fiscal year. right around june, we were going to come back to you because that's right before we actually do our formal kickoff with the summer intern program and getting out into the field. certainly happy to schedule another informational hearing or another meeting if you feel it's necessary. we wanted to use the next several months and briefing the supervisors and getting the planning commission up to speed before coming back to you with future recommendations. >> commissioner black: we'll be reviewing the order? >> there's a whole host of comments that we had. end of the fiscal year might be too far out. you might want to target

something in between. >> we're happy to schedule something in the meantime. >> i did meet with the project sponsor and the architect on the seawall lots 323 and 324. >> we can move on to your regular calendar for item 6a, and b. you'll consider certificate of appropriateness while the assistant zoning administrator will consider request for variance. >> i'll make a motion to recuse commissioner pearlman. >> so moved. >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to recuse pearlman, [roll call]

motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioner pearlman you were recused. >> good afternoon commissioners, rebecca salgado planning staff. there was a request for certificate of appropriateness for alterations to 50 to 52 fair oaks street located on the west side between 21st and 22nd street. the property is located within the article 10 liberty hill landmark district and constructed in 1877. the proposed work includes removal of an existing two-story edition and the construction of a new larger three-story addition. the proposed project includes the demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new garage in the rear yard. the creation of a new window opening at the fair oaks street facade. on december 19, 2018, the committee reviewed the project.

a.r.c. concurred with determination that the proposely project appears to be compatible with the continuity and material texture and details and within the district. staff finds that the proposed work will be in conform enemy wit-- --although the existing an proposed to be removed, it's more than a century old. the design does not have notable architectural features as a whole. the proposed addition is compatible with other rear additions seen from quane alley. the new addition flat roof and windows painted wood siding and reference historic materials and details found at the subject property and throughout the district. the existing garage dates

outside the period of significance and the garage is not prior to historical 6 significance. staff finds the proposed new new opening at the fair oaks street facade will be small amount wood siding but that siding has been altered to the previous installation of utility pipe and meters. since the proposed new garage will be located within the rear yard, the project sponsors requesting variance from the zoning administrator pursuant to section 134 of the planning code. staff recommendation for this project is for approval. prior to the a.r.c. mighting two member of the public contacted planning staff to express concern about the project and their concerns were shared with the a.r.c. committee. planning staff received two

other support for the project. copies of the letters are available for your review. this concludes my presentation. >> president hyland: questions? >> good afternoon commissioners and my name is jeffrey justice. we are in the project architect representing the property owner of the project. the property owner purchased the property at 5052 fair oaks with intent using the upper unit as personal resident. he's residing in that unit as of now.

we've prepared some visibility study so you can see the visibility of addition relative to the existing house. on the left you have the existing on the right you have the proposed. one of my primary goals was to make the addition minimally visible and make it through the historic front facade of the existing property. only places or the addition is visible from fair oaks would be in these narrow view corridors on each side. this is the view from uphill, it's where the addition will be. i should say, the front wall of the addition is set back 15 feet from the front wall of the existing house. this is view from directly in front of the house from fair oaks. from here, the addition is not

visible at all due to the setback in the corner on the front of the existing, you won't see the addition. from downhill view, there's a narrow vow corridor as you're moving up and down fair oaks street that will allow you to see the addition here. this is a view from quane street small alley at the rear of the property. you can see the existing garage which we're proposing to demolish. then there's the existing addition that was added beyond the significance for the house that we're proposing to remove and replace with a new addition. this is uphill view from quane that we've prepared. it shows the existing condition on the left and on the right is proposed condition. what you see here is the new

garage and retaining wall to the left of that. the new garage we're proposing, we chose to set it on the downhill side, it will be much lower with regards to the rear yard. more of the yard will be use bid the property owner. we've done setback that's similar what's on the existing garage. this is a view from slighting downhill. on the left, existing on the right, the proposed. you can see the proposed garage setback and little bit of greenery in front to help soften the alley experience. then the new addition we're proposing which steps back and it has wood siding similar in complementary what is son -- on the existing house. this is a view of current listing alley condition along quane. it shows the varying styles that

are there currently. lastly, these are some metrics that show on the left from the front from fair oaks street, you can see the existing facade with the existing roof and the existing setback 15 feet. that's all i have. i have drawings if you like to see them. they're all in your packet and available for questions. >> president hyland: thank you. questions? we'll open this up to public comment. any member wish to comment on this project? please step forward. you have three minutes. >> shouldn't take that long. i actually am one of the letters of support that you received.

i want to expand little bit on my very brief letter of support. my partner and i live directly to the north of this property. we're direct neighbors we look out over the backyard mostly. we see the back view of the house. we are supporting this project while knoll one is thrilled about having construction next to their house for a year, we live in a city that does that and improves properties and we believe this is an improvement on that property. the owner has been very rebecca receptive to our comments and concerns. i'm just here to express our support. my partner and i. i know my neighbors, we live in

three unit, t.i.c. they support the project as well. >> president hyland: thank you for coming out. any additional public comment? close public comment. bring it back to the commission. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> president hyland: there we go. >> very good seeining nothing further. there's a second to proffe apprs matter. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 5-0. thank you. commissioners item 7 for case 2017-809 montgomery street.

>> good afternoon commissioners. rebecca salgado planning staff. request for certificate of appropriateness for alterations to 809 montgomery street electric located on the west side of jackson street. the property is located within the article 10 jackson square landmark district. the proposed scope of work includes replacement of nonhistoric windows and doors with the existing opening of the montgomery street facade. the construction of two-story extending to the rear lot line. staff finds that the proposed work will be in conformance with article 10. the proposed new windows and doors at the the montgomery

street will be compatible with the existing windows and doorses. staff determined that the proposed addition will be compatible with the subject property in the district. addition will be more than visible from the public right-of-way, it will allow the addition to align with the historic features and the district without calling undue attention to itself. it will not visible from public right-of-way and will not remove character defining features. staff recommendation for this project is for approval with conditions, staff recommends two conditions of approval stipulate that the project sponsor provide shop drawing of proposed windows

to be installed at the montgomery street facade. for the project sponsor to provide sample of the proposed brick plaiding for the rooftop. on march 4th planning staff sent letter support for this project. this concludes my presentation. project sponsor has a brief presentation of the project. >> president hyland: any questions? project sponsor? is five minutes sufficient? okay. >> good afternoon, i'm elisa

skaggs. i'm with page and turnbull. we're pleased to present 809 montgomery to the commission. our team are the project architect. just as a quick recap, we kicked off this project back in 2016. we had certificate of appropriateness in april of 2017. as rebecca said, we've met with the telegraph couple of times in september and in february and since may 201 2017 we've been working with planning staff to make sure that the project was ready for your review. for today, we'll talk about compatibility with the neighborhood and building. we will give you brief design review. the building is located in the jackson square historic district and the building is located on

montgomery street between jackson street and pacific avenue. preservation consultant, our scope included historic research and we didn't uncover lot of photographs we did determine that the openings on the montgomery street facade are original, there's windows and storefronts have been replaced. the building is located in the jackson square historic district and the district is notable for having buildings that are two to three stories in height. facades are at the property line, cast iron is often used in details and there's an overall continuity with the building in the district. as far as 809 montgomery, most of its character to features on that facade. those include the red brick, the brick pattern, exposed anchor

and it's part of our project, we will be retaining and protecting those features. this slide shows some of the changes that we made to make sure that the project was ready which include lowering the rooftop addition to address planning concerns as well as telegraph concerns. we lowered the addition about 2 feet 10 inches. i want to emphasize, rehabilitation consist of a light touch at the front facade. where the existing windows and storefronts will be replaces with new windows mor more compae with the character of the building. the addition is consistent with standards 9 and 10, no character defining features will be removed. the new addition will be differentiated from the historic resource will be impact. finally it will be constructed in a way that is reversible.

i'll turn it over to danielle. >> thank you. i'm the project manager. the project at 809 is about 2700 square foot site. the existing building is about 7500 square feet and two floors above grade. our proposed addition is about 1700 square feet at the roof level and will include roof terrace. in terms of function, the main level is intended to be a public art gallery and the remaining levels will be an owner occupied office space. our main focus on this building has been to strip away the nonhistoric, noncharacter contributing features of this and both of the east and west fa facades and focus on things that are consistent of the era of the original building as well as

with precedence we've seen in around the jackson square historic district. we know interiors aren't heavy focus of planning. we're really excited what we're able to do at the public space of this gallery. the existing heavy timber framing has been covered for years by drop plaster ceilings. those are coming down. we're able to expose that existing framing. we're really excited about. at the street level here, you can see the larger rendering, we're really taking our cues from the buildings we found more successful around the area. the architectural bookstore has minimal signage. that's what we're trying to achieve here, looking and see the art. that's what pulls you in. you can see in the section diagram we're setting our additions back by approximately

33 feet from the facing street facade. the addition adds about 9 feet measured against the existing north and south. as ms. salgado mentioned, it is visible. our material selections and window detailing, we tried to focus on things that will let this be addition into a an urban fabric. weapon want to let tha -- we wao let that be the highlight. in terms of the secretary of interior standards, i think the two that have been our guide post have been that, addition should be differentiated while still relating to the existing structure and if removed, it's not degrading the integrity existing structure. one are the places where this came to focus for us, is where the nut and ol -- new and old m.

one place we like commissioners input today is in our design of our sky lights. we presented two options. the primary option that was included is a more modern flat sky light scheme that will keep top of those skylights close to the top of the parapit. preferred scheme is more traditional to pyramid hip roof skylight. this allows for more simple kind of detail which we feel is appropriate to this era of structure. as we looked around the district, you'll notice highlighted in red, these are all the hip roof, skylights similar to what we're proposing.

we're hoping to walk away today knowing the commission stance on this and how we might proceed. one final thing that's come up in our discussions with the neighbor, particularly at 845 montgomery who's the building to the north of us, they had asked us to look at options for adding vegetation to the north wall of our addition which faces their property. we're looking at two main ways of achieving this. one would be planted wall system. the other will be more ivy grown from the rear terrace and creep its way across the addition. in talking with ms. salgado about this, because planting is not considered permanent, she wasn't sure if this planning under jurisdiction. it's something we like to get the commissioner's feedback on. with that, we're happy to answer any questions. >> president hyland: thank you. >> if i can interrupt to clarify the last point, we were able to

confirm with the project sponsor that actually any structure that is needed to create green wall would be under the purview of this commission. providing guidance on that would be helpful. it doesn't have to come back. >> president hyland: thank you. >> commissioner wolfram: i have a question about the plant in the wall. how would that be maintained? is that a property line wall? that's a little challenging. >> it would. it's something we're still investigating. i think it's going to come down to getting either permissions from the building to the north of us for access for maintaining that or looking at some synthetic products that doesn't require much maintenance. >> commissioner wolfram: second question. we're not commission that review things for code conformance. one concern about the third floor you got assembly occupancy with the roof and the office occupancy. you only have one stair going up

there. you got travel distance issues and possible travel issues. >> that was one our first real challenges on this project. when we first addressed planning with this, we actually had a front stair that was blocking views in the gallery. working with fire and building, they saned off -- signed off on this. the way we're approach ohing wee doing two-hour rating of the floor so you can travel down to the fire stair and reach that second means of egress in front of the building. >> commissioner wolfram: you go through the basement? >> exactly. you can travel across the main level if the fire on the second level. >> commissioner wolfram: it seem like enormous amount of distance. it's hundreds of feet. you can only go when you only have one egress.

>> that's what we've been discussing with fire. the things we've looked at there are increased density of fire sprinklers. as well as more than usual rated walls and partitions especially at the basement allow that allows for that egress. the assumption going in was that, there would be second exit allowed only montgomery. it's not appropriate to this building. because of the constraints of the site, it was always going to be one exit building. one thing i should mention is neither of the areas on the upper floor considered assembly. they are office space. in terms of how they are defined. because the roof terrace is adjacent occupancy to the open office space inside. >> you tell gallery owner not to have something out there.

>> president hyland: any other comments? thank you. any member of the public wish to comment on this project? please step forward. >> thank you very much commissioners. good afternoon i'm stan hayes. i'm share of the telegraph hill planner. this last september we met with the project team to review and comment on a previous version of this proposal. we very much the appreciate changes to their proposal with the team. with the incorporation of these changes and staff's conditions proposed. here today, which we

agree with, we're very pleased to be able to offer our support to this project. just to be specific about, the changes that we've agreed to, first of all the third floor addition was lowered by 2 feet 10 inches. as a matter of principle, we pressure expansions be made to the historic building including this one. we do believe that this change will help reduce the vises visible passing of the project. we're pleased heavy timber construction will be retained at the gallery level. third, the pedestrian view of the main level art gallery was enhanced by using paint color palette and transparent with things that will highlight the building and the character. five, the neighbors 845

montgomery were consulted further which we thought was especially important given their circumstances. we understand they would like the north facing brick wall to be covered with vegetation. while we would be happy if the wall weren't covered at all, three options, we believe the ivy colored wall would be less visibly intrusive and more practical. finally, the changes to the window and storefront were proposed that we believe are more compatible with the historic building. we support this project as it's been changing. i know sometimes when we come down here it's easy for people to say come down and complain about something. this isn't the case. it isn't the case in this project. to us, this is how process supposed to work.

>> president hyland: thank you. any other public comments? close public comment. back to the commission. commissioners? >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. i like this project very much. it's very handsome addition. i think in terms of the first thing i wrote down was planting. i would be concerned about where the leaves go when they fall off relative to who's going to be charged with cleaning it up. that's between the two buildings problem. i agree that the hip skylight is the appropriate design for the skylight. i would support the project very much. >> president hyland: thanks. >> commissioner black: , i agree. it's very pretty building as it existynow. this is a good integration of new wall. i agree with the hip lantern

skylight. it's characteristic of the neighborhood throughout the whole city actually. i don't know what to say about the ivy covered calls. ivy seems to grow everywhere without lot of trouble. i agree about the leaves. i don't know what you do about that. it's a maintenance issue. i have no opinion whatever. this commissioner property owner and neighbors want to work out, i think okay. >> if the full commission has no strong opinion one way or another about any structure that will be required as part of the green wall or ivy covered wall, you may decide in your deliberations to add a condition of approval that project sponsor could work with staff on those final details. that way it wouldn't criticizinr

additional review. >> president hyland: i move we move the project. >> second. >> do we add the skylight? it's in the approval. >> president hyland: noting that we endorse the hip skylight design. on that motion then recommending the hip skylight option and to continue working with staff on that motion. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us on item 8.

906 broadway. >> request for certificate of appropriateness to complete interior alterations including the removal of 205 square feet. at the basement level, the project would install two restrooms and glass pa partition walls. at the first floor, approximately 205 square feet of flooring northeast corner will be removed to allow for creation of new egress connecting that level with the basement. basement and storage room lack character in the future. this work is part of of broader proposal to change the property from religious institution to community and instructional facility. which will require conditional use authorization to be considered by the city planning commission. the department received no

letters in support or opposition to the proposed interior alterations. the project sponsor did conduct their own outreach and gathered 10 letters in support. these are included in your packet. staff determined the work are not alter the defining features as detailed in the draft. based on be this analysis, therefore recommends approval well two conditions. one of which is included in your packet. one that is part of the building permit, the sponsor shall provide mechanic call and plumbing plans to planning department for approval to ensure that spaces will be utilized as feasible on the first floor. then recommended amendment is the second condition of approval that the certificate of appropriateness is subject to formal designation and time line as listed in section 1014 of planning code.

this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioner pearlman: i have a quick question. i was struggling with apparently the stairs being included. there's another means of egress as well as the downstairs space. i can't figure out where the second means of egress is. it seems like trying to get out to the street, it gets blocked. maybe i can wait -- >> the architect can answer that question. >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. >> president hyland: project sponsor? >> hello. >> president hyland: this is part of the presentation? how much time do you need? five minutes total. thank you. >> i'm the executive director of 906 world cultural interest, i'm nonprofit organization focused on using this building for public good. my entire professional career

has been in nonprofit sector, actually helping underprivileged groups and advocating for positive change. i care deeply about the work i do to help improve people's lives. it is my job, my hobby and life. i'm extremely fortunate to work in a beautiful church. 906 aims to increase quality of life by neighbors and community member by focusing on professional development and policy awareness. we have community gathering where neighbors meet other neighbors. the proposed construction will enable to use the upstairs for larger education classes and down stair for classrooms. we're partnering with local neighbors, school, nonprofits

and teachers. we have 46 letters of support currently. we're still collecting them. thank you so much. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm an architect and structure engineer. our offices is retained a address code issues, building codes associated with the change of use that will be heard next week. the solutions do have an impact on the interior of the building you approve for landmark status last week. there's a consequence our exclusive has been sensitive to the historic character of the building. right now, the building primary floors have only one exit each. main exit is also the main entrance to the building. this charges right here on the

front. second exit discharges from the basement also on to broadway further down the street. you can see on this slide. the solution is to connect these two exits with an internal stair which currently does not exist. the fire department is yo awaref this condition. you may know, meanses that someone from the fire department needs to be hired to monitor the entire event. adding an internal stair, it's a simple solution that needs no alterations necessary at all. this building has been designated landmark since 1993. touching exterior is another discussion. i briefly testified we're studying three possible

locations for internal stair. we continue to work with neighborhood groups and the department and all agreed that the preferred location was at the far end of the former sanctuary through an existing door. this picture shows the main floor. you can see at the very back, is a door to an existing room, stair will be behind that door. flooring will need to be removed. mechanical equipment below would have to be relocated and two big walls would have to be penetrated in order to make it work. the building is not fully sprinklered. there are fire sprinklers in the basement. as you may know, in san francisco fire sprinkler is

build by a general contractor. we have included performance specifications to ensure there will be no exposed piping. lastly, new restrooms and classrooms will be added in the basement. we would be happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> president hyland: thank you. any questions? why don't we take public comment. we have two speaker cards so far. >> i wrote the message on the back. i can read it from my phone, if

you like. >> president hyland: we'll enter it in the record. >> hi. my name is gloria ramos. i would like to read something that we wrote -- i need my glasses -- we wrote to commissioner patrick, president of landmark board. this was in april 1994. this is from the latino landmark preservation foundation. we are committed to the ultimate restoring of this structure,

landmark 204 to the community cultural and historic centre it was. the community and latino community was very understood in preserving this as a place for gathering for cultural events for recognizing that it was very important to the hispanic community. that's where we stand. i represent, at this point, myself and hundreds the other latinos who really worked to make this their centre. thank you. >> president hyland: thank you. any other public comment?

>> hi. i'm maxine quade. i wanted to be here in support. i'm a writer. i work with young professional women all over the world. actually i'm just an example of the type of partner that -- 906 would work with. i live two belongs away from the centre. i think this is an amazing space to do professional events, for young professionals, other people who don't have the type of access that is normally required to be at these types of events. i host things like this, the tech companies all the time. that's just giving opportunity to people who have opportunities. for someone is doing this work and being able to have the access to type of space like 906 broadway, i want to support it. thank you. >> president hyland: any other

public comment? >> good afternoon. my grandparents were married there in1995 and great grandmother 1910. the place represents a community that's no longer there. it represents tangible example of what we used to be, what we still are and we're still present here in the city. there's a large number of people who aren't here anymore who have been fighting 30 years to get to this point. i want to give my support my family, my family and other countries because the group that's there now is doing what we wanted it to be. for long time, it remained derelict, abandoned. it was just a mystery hole on russian hill. like what is that? i want to say, i support it and thank you very much for your consideration. >> president hyland: thank you.

any other public comment? closed public comment. bring it back to the commission. >> i move to approve. >> i second that. i like to make a quick comment. i wanted to comment to ms. ramos about you haven't been here when we talk about legacy businesses in san francisco. we talk about how the people who represent those businesses are san francisco. they're the people who make san francisco what it is. the fact that you're quoting something if 25 years ago at the beginning of struggle to save this building, and that you're here to see it through all the way through, is a testament and the last gentleman who smoker back to his great kids com grea. it's good to see the history in one place. the community may not be there,

clearly the community has come forward. it's a testament to you and the community to have gotten this far. i second the motion as well. >> president hyland: there's nothing further commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter withen conditions. [roll call] motion passes unanimously 6-0. that will place us on item 9 seawall lots 323 and 324. this is certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon. i'm jonathan vimr. i'm including a copy to get a docket copy on record mostly.

the application before you is a request to adopt findings that the proposed project is consistent with the purportses of article 10 of the planning coped and secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. the subject property is located within the northeast water front landmark district and is currently developed with the surface parking lot. as proposed this project would demolish said parking and replace it with mixed use development. approximately 112,000 square foot hotel and approximately 26,000 square foot entertainment veen ewe and approximately 14,000 maintained park. the project will seek conditional use authorization from the city planning commission. the planning commission will consider general plan referral pertaining to a proposed street vacation. should the planning commission approve these items, the project would be considered for approval

by the board of san francisco. the department received two letters in opposition of the project. one of which was provided after the publication date of the hearing packet. the concerns expressed relate to the obstruction of vallejo street and the glass theater pavilion. since publication the department receive 19 letters in support of the project, all which were gathered by the project sponsor through their own outreach. most these materials were sent to the commission. staff determined that the proposed work with the recommended conditions as outlined in your case report, will be consistent with the requirements outlined in appendix d of article 10 of the planning code. it will be compatible with the character of subject site and of the northeast water front landmark district. based on the analysis, staff recommends that the commission find the project as consistent with article 10 and the

secretary standards provided that the sponsor complies with the condition outlined in the draft motion which are slightly fair phrase -- paraphrase as follows. prior to the permit, the project sponsor should provide architectural plans, so that they may consult with port staff regarding planning recommendations. they should include detail sections for all window and storefront systems including through howe they -- how they meet building reveal. the project sponsor should continue to work with planning on the building design, the final design including the but not limited to final colors, finishes and textures should be reviewed by planning and approved by the port prior to issuance of the port building permit. the project sponsor should include notes confirming the prior to the fabrication of the

brick plaiding, support staff should review mock-up to ensure the material is consistent with historic preservation commission findings. it should include notes confirming that -- said mock-up shall include joint at the meeting point of two sections. condition 6 and 7 which affirm the height of the elevator shall be consistent with the requirements of the planning code. one other amendment, amended motion is just on small thing on page 6. [please stand by]. >> -- took th

heard, made changes.-- took th we've met with planning director rahaim and his staff on some of the more difficult issues, and i think we came upon a -- i know we came upon a compromise that seemed towo wo. we're working hard, given the constraints of the site, the height limits, and the location to make the very best project we can that will bring a new hotel back to the waterfront,

will bring teatro zinzanni back to the waterfront and we hope will be a great addition to the waterfront and our city at large. so i'm going to turn it over to mark hornberger to talk about some of the real issues you care about. thanks. >> okay. thank you. for the record, mark hornberger, and i'm the