hi, jan, good morning, how are you? this is all that has been on her mind since it began, and i really disagree with the additional complaints that have been brought against her very recently. thank you so much for hearing me i appreciate this process and i hope you can hear the rest of my neighbors, too. i know it has been a very long day for us. >> thank you.

>> i know what the house looks like before she did the paint job. it is beautiful. you really should drive by it to see it. i am really sad that there's so much commotion and i know it has to do with the permits and, you know, sometimes the permits aren't always in our best interest. i just wish that this code go away and that we could have our streets back. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i live across the street. i have lived across the street for well over 30 years and walked by the house a million times. there is no doubt about the dry rot, they might have even been termites there. there should be no doubt about the improvements there, and i

can't see where there is any real structural deficiencies going on, so i don't see how anybody could speak otherwise. it is just much better than it was. and also, i noticed on the curb, those granite blocks are tapered downwards. there's absolutely no doubt that that has been a driveway since day one. and anybody that looks there, unless you went out with a chisel at some point, anyone could see that that has been a driveway since day one. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. i am a longtime resident of the mission district and a friend of jan's and a former neighbor of hers. i am in total agreement with her reasoning and the letters that were written by the designer and

her neighbor. i think they really said it all very well. i know dan made -- she made a good faith effort in the beautification of this formerly drab house façade, very job. and the deer or -- deteriorating effort driveway. i hardly realize it was historic and had so much potential. it was just so drab. it has been known she has the support of the building department for the work she has done, which should be emphasized it is also practical infrastructures in place that she has described in that immediate area. it seems to me it would be common sense for these -- to keep things as they are. so much improved as they now are , and without any kind of penalty. as others have said, she has been under terrible stress because of this and i'm worried about her, so thank you for

listening to all of us today. >> thank you for coming out. >> hello. i have a couple of points to make. my husband and i live behind jan we bought it in 2009. from the pictures, you can kind of see that the slope from 21 st street is quite steep down to the gate. on the other side of the gate, the slope is a little bit less, but continues all the way down to my house, which you can see from the map pictures. is probably about 60 feet. our houses two stories but we live mainly on the second floor. acute reason why we bought our houses because of the privacy,

you couldn't see our house from the street. you can't even see it from the second floor of the people across the street. the only people who can see into our house and our yard on the side are jan, attendance, and the site neighbors on the left have a window that looks into it with the proposed fence, given the slope of the driveway, you will be able to stand on 21st street and see right into my window if it is open, if it is 75% open and 10 feet tall from the grade, so we go from having 100% privacy 20% privacy in the front yard and i really can't overstate the difference that that will make in that space and the way that has worked for us since 2009. the second point i want to make his i as i really appreciate the need to preserve historical district when we wanted to replace our siding, when we needed to replace our siding, we went through the certificate of appropriateness. we changed from having cedar

shingles to the original siding, and i just feel like there's no comparison between that and replacing this existing gate with a proposed fence which has no place in the history of the property. >> thank you. >> pardon my attire. as a lawyer you think i would know better. i am a tenant of jan's. me and my fiancé live in the in law suite at the back of the house. security has been discussed, if it is reduced, it will reduce 1. that is nothing. what i -- when i attend the notice of hearing on the gable, i reached well above 15 feet. we don't lock our doors, which sounds rather quaint, but i think it's a nice way to live.

and if it had to change, that wouldn't be the case anymore. lastly, i would say that jan is an especially kind, welcoming, and generous person. she has made my fiancé and i feel at home in a new city. she knows -- loves her historic house and loves the city. i therefore urge the committee to treat this issue equitably and grant the variance. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is christina. i own a home near the property. i have lived here for 25 years. at a time when so many middle-class and fixed income residents are being forced out of san francisco, it is appalling to me that we could be interpreting -- contributing to gentrification of the city. if you require jan to not only undo the work she did but to

restore the property to a standard it has not met in decades, you are effectively saying the only people who should own homes in these neighborhood are those who are wealthy enough to restore the historic details. i am not wealthy enough to restore my home to its historic details, and now i am afraid i may not be able to do basic maintenance and repairs to my house without triggering some sort of hermit and problems with the building department and the historic commission. i urge you to give her the permit she payment she needs in close this case and let the gable stand as it is. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public would like to address this item? i do want to thank everyone for coming out and keeping our time. i really appreciate it. this maybe your first time here and it is an interesting process we will close public comment and bring it back to the commission. commissioners? commissioner pearlman? >> thank you.

i very much appreciate this predicament. one of the things that i discussed with mayor lee when i was appointed to this commission was about the fear that people had of being designated as a historic resource for historic property because of the exact reasons we're talking about today, and this is an incredible example of the conflicts between our search for purity in terms of keeping our neighborhood, you know, as we think they should be , and the reality of the people who actually live there. in this case, i am so swayed by the fact that there are, you know, there were 50 letters, and while the base letter was standardized, more than 30 people had written a note on their, you know, typically when

we get petitions, someone just signs it. it is the same petition over and over. in this case, and the fact that this many people came out, says an alarmist amount about this specific neighborhood. i think, you know, i think that we always talk about the fact that the history is we just have a legacy business and we talk about the history of the city as written by its people and the stories that we tell about, you know, who we are and what we are about. the search for perfection to make something exactly as it should be is probably not the best way to run a city. i also do not agree with the staff on the proposed solution because i think that also is not something that is in that district. it is something that is in that

district. obviously there is no specific design that we are looking at, with but the perception of what it is, this has been in place for over 304 years because it was there prior to her purchase of the property or her family's purchase of the property. clearly things like the driveway , if there were granite curbs there, then those granite curbs have been there a very long time. if they were concrete curbs, you know, you could say, well, those were replaced at some point. granite curbs tend to be very old, usually original to the first paving of the street. i am really torn about this because i agree there is a sense of this kind of disney cable that isn't something that is on the street, but what we neglect to think about is false runs. every victorian, most victorians

have either a gable shape or a flat front that goes up and sticks up way beyond the actual structure of the house, so if you're coming down the street, you see the thinness of that façade, which is, you know, one of these things that you see with this cable and -- this gable and. i am torn and agree with the staff that this is not an opiate -- it is not appropriate under the character defining features of the district, but at the same time, it certainly -- it is not offensive in any way, and it kind of fits in. it also protects from a safety standpoint, getting to the backyard because all of the other houses tend to have the side alley, but then the house expands into that alley space so there is no way to get behind the houses. this -- i went on the google street view and went up and down

the street to see if there was any other place, any other similar circumstance. it doesn't appear that there is a similar circumstance here. i did a very quick sketch, and you probably can't see it, but basically my thought was, with a little bit of carpentry, if you just cut the gable down and build it up, and then take the trim that is above the windows and put it at the top and made a flat to view, i'm not sure that this can be seen, but i can certainly pass it around. it would be a fairly simple way to make it less cartoonish and make it more appropriate to the house. this is just a thought. i'm not saying this is a solution, but i think that the amounts of change that would be required is well beyond what i

think is appropriate for this particular problem. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i did drive by to look at this. in part because i was confused by the fence. i didn't know if the fence was this thing above the garage, or the femmes was that iron thing. so that is one reason why i drove by to take a look at it. i think commissioner pearlman has pretty much nailed it in his comments. it struck me that while there is , shall we say, a cartoonish quality about this gable, still, there are good cartoons and there are bad cartoons. [laughter] there are cartoons that work and there are cartoons that don't. i agree with pretty much

everything with -- that the staff said, except, sometimes the perfect is the worst enemy of the very good. i think that this is very good. at least it is good enough considering the privacy and the security aspects, and other things which perhaps staff was not aware of. now, what is the rule that we are to be left with? because the staff needs guidance everything needs guidance. i have never been a fan of redesigning projects on-the-fly, and this is maybe the mirror image of redesigning projects on-the-fly. i think the rule might be that we should do an analysis based

on everything that our staff did in this instance. back then there was a little bit more, and when there are other concerns such as privacy and security and cost -- now commissioner herman, who knows much more about cost of construction than i do, apparently thinks that the cost would be great, and that is something that i would be very much swayed by. i think that we must keep in mind that the preservation rules are here to serve the citizens of san francisco. it is not the other way around. citizens are not placed here to serve the preservation rules. i think that at the boundaries, there is room for us to accommodate unusual situations,

and i think that this is an unusual situation. i would be inclined to leave things as they are now. as to the driveway, i think that the fact that the curb cuts are trimmed in stone is positive. for me, that ends the inquiry. they have been there or an entreaty -- they have been there for an eternity. i cannot imagine how someone could prove that they weren't. the records may indeed have been destroyed in a 1906, but i don't know. the stone might say it is okay. >> great. if i can make a comment before you. i think this is a classic quagmire. i think that we are in a position of addressing a process that is important. the owner obviously has had --

gone through a process that didn't quite match what the process is and our staff is being asked to do their job, so i don't have an exact suggestion just yet, but i didn't want to say that. commissioner black? >> all the things that all three have you have said i concur with things are swirling around and it is very personal. lots of engagement and involvement for a whole bunch of people, and obviously it is very personal to the owners and the neighbors and mysterious people who turn them in, and things that are really not in our purview. i also did drive by and looked very carefully. it is clear that the owner cares for her property. it is a charming historic house. i do think it's very possible that the mid-18 sixties.

the color she chose is unusual and attractive, and i think, also that the driveway is possibly original, and the reason i think that, while i don't know if there is a rear structure that was ever a carriage house, i happen to know that there is a carriage house a few properties up that is accessible from hill street. it is definitely a neighborhood pattern where there were driveways that went to the rear of certain properties, especially properties that didn't immediately about another property, and this would be this one because it precedes all the later victorians that surround it. i think it is altogether possible that the rear structure started life as a carriage house without seeing it, i can't even begin to say. i also respect the desire for

privacy. we all want privacy in our lives i'm sorry, i'm a little less persuaded by not wanting to lock doors or being 50 feet off from a street in an urban area where someone can see in a window, gosh, if only i could keep people from seeing in my windows i would be delighted. those are not the kinds of highly persuasive reasons to do this. i was also, even though mr. fagan calls the squared off versions, the older version of this feature original, i have no doubt it was never original. however, i think it was built a long time ago, very clearly, and i'm somewhat persuaded, even though i know there's no legal basis for this, since it was

probably not -- it was probably never permitted, it was there a long time ago. the owner genuinely believed that it was original, and i don't believe the owner intended to bypass the permitting process i'm sorry, i can see that. one thing i want to mention to anybody who lives in this district is to investigate the mills act as a tool. it is a way that historic property owners, especially newer historic property owners can use to offset their taxes in order to use the funds to repair their historic house. i would encourage those of you who are concerned to investigate that. it is an important tool and san francisco is one of the few cities in california that really

makes good use of this tool. honestly, i also think that we need to communicate clearly here , not just to the property owner, but also to staff. staff is just trying to do their job. they are trying to implement very specific criteria set out in our code. i don't think staff were trying to go after this person, they were just trying to do their job to the best they know how, and someone who was a staff person for 30 years for other cities, i know how hard that is, so i tend to agree with all of you. this is a giant quagmire that i know none of us want to be waiting around in, but i also want to make a decision here that can solve the problem, but

also express that i haven't seen any evidence that stuff is done anything wrong, and there i am. >> all right. >> i have a question. first, you asked about how much it would cost if we were to support this certificate of appropriateness with the conditions, and according to mry ten or $15,000, but also, your question about the motion. so are you saying that we should consider deleting some parts of the conditions of approval, or, i'm trying to understand what you are thinking.

>> i was thinking out loud. >> there are four conditions of approval. are you saying that we should delete the section about demonstration of location code compliant offstreet parking, and then approve the rest of the conditions that are stated, i am trying to figure out where you're coming from. >> definitely. i was thinking out loud, trying to work through this, and i had pretty much come to the conclusion that we should approve this as it is, and then commissioner pearlman suggested, well, the concern that has been expressed is that this is completely unlike anything else, which is true. it might be addressed by lowering it and putting on the trim, putting trim on it, which

is somewhat similar to the trim on the house, of course, commissioner permanent expressed it much better, but that was the thing. as far as the driveway, i think that should be eliminated, and i think this baby has been there long enough. i kind of question the carriage house. i don't think anybody looked in lived in a structure like this had a carriage. it might have been a staple, which would have fit with the general building. i think carriage is perhaps an overstatement. >> i meant an outbuilding, a stable or whatever. a barn. >> does that answer your question. >> does anyone have any suggestions about how we should a.b. reconsider the conditions here, working with staff? >> commissioner pearlman? >> i don't think this is a

quagmire. a quagmire tends to be a massive issue. i think there's just the difference between the staff and our commission is that the staff is doing their job and following process, absolutely. nothing wrong with that. but we are a body that can supersede that, and we can have judgements that may not be specific to the code and specific to everything, if it is a reasoned response to that. >> right. that is why we are looking at this. >> i think the problem is, do we just eliminate the conditions of approval? i don't know quite how to do it relative to the process. >> i think the quagmire is in that we have an obviously noncompliant fence that had some damage that the property owner

attempted to repair and beautify our process, our standards require a limit in height, a setback from the front of the house, and 75% openness. so that is where the quagmire is , and we have a property owner who is now caught in a spider's web, so we need to figure out how to support our staff in doing the job that we have asked them to do, and we have to figure out how to frame this so that we are not creating a precedent so people can take advantage of this kind of quagmire. >> right. >> that is our task. i don't have any great suggestions. >> i would rather them consider this. i looked at it as someone mentioned, i don't know who it was, but as one of a false friends that we see.

it was commissioner pearlman. i thought that that was a very good description of it. what i was not too happy about was the way this looks. it looks okay, and i like your flattened thing with the trim similar to what is over the window, and i think, if looked at as the façade that you sometimes find above peaked roofs, that would make me comfortable, and i think would give staff some guidance so that they could see our reasoning. >> okay. commissioner black, would you like to add on? >> i would love to see the design that commissioner pearlman has. i do want to make sure that we

make findings related to this structure so that we don't set a precedent. because, you know, honestly, i think all of us are of the opinion that this is a nonhistorical look, and strictly using the criteria that we are set with, we want to be careful that we are not sending the wrong kind of message out to the neighborhood that people should continue this type of structure. >> commissioner his, just to chime in a little bit here in terms of the discussion, we certainly understand the circumstances that have surrounded the house, so we are in the heart -- the heart of the

situation where we have to interpret the code as we see fit , and particularly since this was an enforcement matter, we always treat enforcement matters we're not punitive in general and enforcement, we do have to evaluate based on the recommendations that we would offer if the project or similar type of project would be offering at the time. just to give some insight in terms of legalizing the additional, since the fences over 10 feet high, neighborhood notice would need to occur to legalize this. since our code limits are 10 feet high. requires neighborhood notification to the surrounding neighbors. the other matter that we had concerns with was the attachment of the fence to the adjacent property since the fences need to be independent and own on their own property, not relying

on adjacent structures for their support. those are two other items that i figured i would chime in with and i'm happy to answer questions, or natalia also has done lots of research on this project. >> someone said the fence was not attached to the buildings on either side. for that to be true, then that would take care of that issue. so maybe the thing to do is get it out there with a ladder and look, and it either is attached or it isn't. and the next thing is as to the notice, well, i don't know what it costs to send out a notice, but if this demonstration is anything, kind of a predictor of

what that will do, there's going to be a whole lot of people, the vast majority of people who think this is just fine, and there maybe one or two, i don't know. >> as i warned any member of the public, and i'm sure commissioner carmen can attest, it just takes one to file a discretionary review, and it extends the process into a much longer and painful spots. >> did you want to address commissioner johns? >> i just want to address the attachment. it is certainly not clear that the fences attached to a structure. we have requested some sort of details showing how the structure is attached and that is also something the department of building inspection requested if that could be provided, that would suffice. >> what a photograph be sufficient? >> we can review that provide further information. >> can i ask a question?

i have the same problem that you did about fencing. to me this is an a fence the way that many people think of a fence. i did not look at our code to see how fences are defined. this seems more like a parapet or a building addition, given that this is a garage more than a fence, even though the purpose of it -- >> it is a gate to the driveway. >> there is no building behind it. >> it is kind of like an l-shaped fence. if you look at how the settings of the door is setback, there is a platform, and then there is the gable that pops up. >> there is no garage? >> no. >> when i drove by it was closed off. >> it is a steep driveway. >> okay. fair enough when i drove by --

>> she has a picture from the back side. >> i believe everybody that it is not the garage. thank you. then it can't be a parapet. >> the last page of the package shows the section. >> i know, i couldn't figure out what it was. >> any suggestions? >> excuse me, ma'am, you can't just -- unless you are called up for a question, you can't just start yelling at us through the gallery. >> i think we are fine. >> ma'am, you are out of order. ma'am, i think we know what we

need to do, we're just trying to figure out how to do it. thank you. >> ma'am, i'm sorry, you are out of order, i mean, really. >> commissioner black, are you okay? >> you know, there is a question of if we vote on this and it doesn't pass, that leaves a different kind of problem because she still can't closer permit because then there is no sea of a and then we would have to start over. one thing we could do is continue it and see if we can find a way to modify the condition of approval, or modify this in such a way so that it could come back to us with something that is more in keeping with what we are talking about, because i would hate for this thing to just fail, you know, and then just leaves her in a bigger lurch because then there is no process to pursue.

>> in this instance, given the long history, the staff has done quite a lot of work trying to come up with some kind of solution that we could come to a middleground with, so without some kind of direct direction to us or to the property owner, i don't know how we would achieve the next step in this particular instance. >> i thought there was a garage behind this. i had thought there was a building. that's why i was so persuaded by the parapet façade, but since there isn't, then that changes thing dramatically because we are in this situation where there is very clearly a fence, and there doesn't seem to me to be, at this point, there doesn't seem to me to be any

intellectually honest lay -- way to get around that. i am not sure that we are empowered to disregard rules concerning fences. >> i think we can ask the city attorney, but i believe we can grant this without conditions as it is instructed if we chose to do that and have the four votes. i believe we can do that. would set a precedent, but we could do it. >> your discretion is broad, and the scope of your review is whether the project here would comply with article ten standards. i think the question is, is the current fence, or however, we call it, in compliance with the character defining features of the district. does it detract from the district, is it historic in some way, or could we find a way to

make it work with the district? this is not an individually significance, not an individual structure, it is part of a district. your review is broad. >> i think i know the answer, but did you consider, essentially commissioner permanent's suggestion that it could be dropped, squared, and some trim put on it to make it look like this and then it is 1? and whether that would have been -- that would have satisfied the requirements. >> one other thing is that for what we have just been told, there probably could meet the secretary of interior standards. again, maybe not with the gable, but -- again, if we got it to 1, you know, that we wouldn't have to do notifications, things like that, but it seems like we could

meet the standard relative to the district. >> i think i might have a suggestion, and i think there's two paths here. one is that if the original fence was maintained, and the dry rot repaired, i believe, i don't know, but i believe that would not require a permit. that would be maintenance. we would then not have to evaluate this as whether it meets the standards, and the property owner did that, and brought the new repairs into further compliance with the standards. does that make sense? >> it would make it shorter? >> it is more consistent with the character defining features of the building. >> exactly. so to commissioner john's original point, it is not perfect, but it is better than

it was. >> by a lot. >> a lot. >> so if i might offer, it sounds like we are still kind of bandying what to do with what has been built. i do think that the gable is probably one of the biggest parts that we have issues with. for instance, we have clear guidance about adding -- architectural features, you know , it is clear that there was a noncomplying fence there for a number of years, by today's standards, we would certainly ask for some kind of setback so you could reach the full form and massing of the residents, since that is the piece that you want, and in most cases, when we approach fences, we don't want them to be -- to conflict visually with the house itself, you know, which is what happens when the gable is placed on there. so i am certain that if a

modified version of this included just clipping the gable , would probably could get to an even consensus. >> we can approve thisan revise the direction per what we would like to see. >> in my past life, whenever we had a case like this, follow the findings. use the findings as much as we can to make the case, and that should help us solve it. i agree with you that we can make this provide security. by the way, how is this measured is a measured from the wall where it is, or the sidewalk grade? >> we measured from grade at the point that it is. the height follows the grade. >> so it is 10 feet to the top of the gable? >> correct.

>> it is almost 15. >> it is almost 15 to the top of the gable? sorry. i know these things are in the packet. >> but the grade is here? >> it would be at the point of down below, basically. >> the lower part of the fence. >> if you clarify the total height of the fence in your discussion, that would help us. >> i don't know what the height of this is, but i would recommend that it just be taken to the first horizontal board and be done with it. it is probably higher than 10 feet, but it depends on where you measure it from. if you measure 10 feet from the grade of the front of the house, it is below 10 feet. >> exactly. >> we could measure it from the grade of the front of the house. >> yeah,. >> that could solve it.

>> and also just to be careful, the term variance has been bandied about. variances not required, is it? >> variance is not required for this. and just to clarify, the purpose of the 311 notice, grading would be -- height would be measured from grade at the location of the fence. >> thank you. [simultaneous talking] >> make it 10 feet. >> 10 feet is way down here. >> in terms of the security issue of having a 10-foot fence for the people who live behind, 10 feet is a pretty big fence, and if you have to take a ladder to get over it, you know, not everyone walking down the street we'll just jump over a 10-foot fence, so, especially if it is electrified. also, you put some spikes on the top of that, and it limits people's --

>> you could get on someone's back here and jump over jumped over. i don't know. >> i think we have -- >> everyone has the same issue in san francisco, you know, and we shouldn't be making an adjustment just because this is one where, yes, there certainly a possibility that someone could break in, but that is true everywhere. i lived in the middle of a block , and someone broke into my house by coming over every fence between the properties in the mid-block open space and still managed to come in the back of my house, so that, as an argument, i don't think it's one we should be concerned about relative to the historic quality of this property. >> could we make a motion to have it restored back to the height it was as a maintenance item? >> the height was taller than what it currently is. >> it is way taller, exactly. >> i did what you did, which was just clip it at the top, clip

the gable off. >> that is higher than 10 feet. >> it is definitely higher. >> clip the gable and strategically plant climbing roses? [laughter] >> that is about 14 or 15 feet. that is pretty high. >> it is about 12 feet tall. it will be around 12 and 13 feet tall. >> if we take it to the bottom of the gable? >> yes.

>> so just looking at this sheet , looking at 33, if you look at the rear -- >> so she would still be getting a higher fence then she would be permitted if she had some sort of permit? >> correct. >> we will still have to do neighborhood notification, but it will give us a path towards legalization that is clear from the commission in terms of what the direction should be. >> so, can we propose that the conditions of approval are that to remove the cable element, and for the top of it, put the trim that is the head over the windows, you know, the same. >> to match the trim that is already there. >> to match the trim over the windows. >> but basically in a horizontal fashion. >> you know, there is the seat and then the head, and so then

it will look appropriate, and then i think we have the issue of the notification, but i expect notification, you know, won't cost the owner all that much, and when i was referring to cost, construction wise, to take that off and just to the trim is not a very expensive proposition.

>> and findings of compliance. >> the findings we have approve the fence. >> we're going approve and change the conditions of approval. the motion would be to strike

the existing conditions of approval and replace it with a condition of approval to remove the gable of the -- >> i think three foot eight. and put a cap of trim that matches that is similar and matches the trim over the head of the windows on the street facade. and there should be a second condition of approval that it can be reviewed by staff so it doesn't have to come back to us. >> the last condition stays in and she will notify preservation staff. >> we're all taking it to the top of the -- you are going to have do the 311.

>> that will still be for the neighbors 12 feet high or 12-foot 6. >> and it will be the same security? >> and it won't change the security because they can step over the triangular area so we're actually making it the same as it is now. >> just some typo errors. in the preamble it says may 17th. that differenters from what is said in the timeline which says may seventh. it's one or the other. just the last page of the motion for the decision, this last paragraph, this is not a permit to commend any work or change of occupancy unless no building permit and maybe just clean that first -- >> where was it at. >> page 6 of the motion, clean it up and make it clear. it should be very clear. what can and cannot be done.

>> sorry. that last paragraph is standard and most of the hpc motions just say that this -- they still have to obtain a building permit at the end of t day. >> correct. >> ok. >> so i think we have a motion. >> yes. >> so moved. >> who made the motion? >> i did. >> very good. >> second. >> very good commissioners. there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matters with conditions as been amended strike the first three conditions and replacing them with that the fence must remove the gable three feet eight inches. and provide matching trim. on that motion, commissioner black. >> yes. >> johns. >> yes. >> pearlman. >> yes. >> highland. >> yes. >> so moved. that motion passes 5-0.

>> can i say one thing, if you wanted to wait, we have one case that won't be long. i was going to suggest if you could wait, we have one more case. i can go over it with you to show you what i've drawn. would that be ok? >> thank you. >> that's all. thank you. >> all right, commissioners. item 11 for case 2015-009783 p.t.a. for 220-222 bat row street this ibatterystreet. >> last one day. application is a request for a major permit alter for the property of 220 battery street. a category 5 unrated building located within the front california conservation district. the property is currently

developed with a two-storey building completed in 1913 and altered in the mid 1900s. the project would construct a four--storey with vertical dish and top existing structure with the existing building restaining its current commercial uses and any addition housing for dwelling units. it would be largely clad and red brick vainer with windows and heighten separating the existing structure from the new and a simply detailed metal cornice. the department has received no correspondence expressing support or opposition to the project. this project was brought before the architect actual ve rioux committeactualand the only realr the proposal being the inclusion of a steel pipe between the structure and string course and department staff will leave

other standards and the metal heights resulting in slightly more differentiation and string providing the compatible with the struck characteristics. neither approach would appear to tip the project out of conformance withstandard nine. your case report staff recommend approval with the following two conditions as part of the permit the project sponsor should provide final details and finish material samples to department staff and part of the building permit implementation department staff shall review an on site mock up of the system to ensure the materials consistent with this commissioner's findings. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is in attendance and plans to provide their own brief presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for your patients today. [laughter]

>> the owner is here and i'm here as the architect. we're here to answer questions. i believe we've tried as hard as we can to follow the instructions from the architect actual review commiee. if you have any questions, great. i'm here to answer them. >> i have one question. >> on your rear east he will 83.01 there's a fire escape with no way to get to it. there's no door out of the staircase and on the plan it doesn't show a door there either. i'm just wondering. >> it will be a drafting error. >> i mean i'm assuming you want to keep that there, is that correct? >> what sheet is that? >> 83.01. it's the elevation. >> yes, you are absolutely right. there should be a door at the landing and i can show you the

door on the plan. i apologize since we've been through many variations of this project and the funds for trying to -- >> there is no door on the plan either. that's why i'm asking. >> the door disappeared. >> exactly, right. >> there should be a door because obviously we want to get out. >> i figured as much. >> i just want to make sure. >> i appreciate the clarification. >> that's very good. >> let's open up for public comment. any member of the public wish to address the item? seeing none. i'm close public comment and bring it back to the commission and i can just say this did come before the a.r.c. and they met all the issues and have resolved everything that we had any concern with. i would support this as it is. >> so do i. it should have a door. >> it should have a door and no fence. >> can we make a condition of

approval that we include a door. >> that is a typo. they can fix that. >> >> we wouldn't get through the building department without it. >> ok. >> do we have a motion. >> i would make a motion to approve with the condition that is stated. >> i second. >> very good. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> appreciate your effort. you are doing a good job. >> thank you. >> we need a vote don't we. >> we do. >> on that motion to approve with conditions commissioner black. >> yes. >> johns. >> yes. >> pearlman. >> yes. >> mat yes. >> that motion passes unanimously 5-0. and we're adjourned. .

>> shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services we help san francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. >> my name is neil the general manager for the book shop here on west portal avenue if san francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because the residents the neighborhood

muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we see the same people here the shop all the time and you know to a certain degree this is part of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both national chains and neighborhoods by the neighborhood stores where coming you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their

own- that's [ roll call ]. >> this is the recreation and park commission meeting of august 15, 2019. we welcome everyone here today and would ask that you please turn off electronic devices that may sound off during these proceedings. please take any secondary conversations outside in order for the meeting to proceed as efficiently as possible. if you would like to speak on any item today, we request but do not require that you complete a blue card. unless otherwise announced by the chair, each person will have 3 minutes for public comment on each item. please address your comments to the commission during public comment. in order to allow equal time for