I would remind members of the public to please silent your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. I will take a role at this time. [roll call] first on your agenda is general public comment. I have no speaker cards. Any member of the public wish to address the commission . Closed public comment. Department matters, director announcements. No announcements. Review of planning Staff Commission report and announcements. Is the Planning Commission on recess . Sorry, still none. [laughter] okay. Commission matters president s report and announcements. No report. Consider ration of adoption drive minutes for the july 17, 2019 regular hearing. Any member of the public wish to comment on our draft minutes from july 17 . Okay. Closed public comment. I move they be approved. Second. On that motion to adopt the minutes for july 17. [roll call] cell moved. The Motion Commission comments and questions, item number five. V. P. Matsuda after our july 17, 2019 hearing, i received a phone call from supervisor ronans office regarding the motion to include the wolsey project on our landmark designation. If there is nothing else, we can move on to your consent calendar. It is considered to be routine by the Historic Preservation commission and may be acted upon by single roll call. There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission public, or staff so requests. Item six, 20181321, at 78 carmelita street. I have no speaker cards. Any member of the public wish to take this off the consent calendar . Closed public comment. Commissioners . I move that we approve it. I second it. Thank you. [roll call] so moved. The motion passes unanimously 50. Regular calendar for item number seven, the hub plan, 30 van ness project, and hub housing sustainability district. This is for your review and comments. May have the screen please . Good afternoon. My name is i am the senior preservation planner for the hub plan at 30 van ness, then 98 franklin Street Project on the hub housing sustainability district. Joining me today are allison, sql research is manager at the Planning Department. I would like to note that we have a stenographer present to create a transcript of todays proceedings. I would encourage commissioners, members of the public to speak will slowly and clearly to assist this process. The public review. For the hub project began on july 25, 2019 and will land at 5 00 p. M. On september 9, 2019. The Commission Members will provided with links at the notice of public hearings and notice of availability of the draft eir on july 25, 2019. Today we are here to provide an opportunity for your commission to provide its comments on the draft eir to the Planning Commission and the department. As part of the hearing today you will receive public testimony. I would like to remind everyone that comments made by the public at this hearing should be directed to assisting the commission in formulating its comments on the draft eir and want to be responded to. If a member of the public would like to make a comment on the draft eir, attend the Planning Commission hearing on thursday august 29, 2019. The San Francisco Planning Department proposes to rezone portions of an area of San Francisco within the boundaries of the downtown civic center, south of market Western District and mission neighborhoods. The 84acre area is referred to as the hub. It would amend the 2,008 area plan of the San Francisco general plan focusing on the eastern portions of the plan. The hub plan improves plans to streets and sidewalks. The street scape and Street Network improvements are analyzed at a project specific level and the draft eir. Two individual Development Projects 30 van ness and 98 franklin street are evaluated. The proposed project at 30 van ness includes retentions of portions of the existing 75foot tall, fiveStory Building and construction of a 45 foot Story Building with ground floor retail space. Thirtythree floors of residential space and vehicular bicycle parking. The proposed part project at 98 franklin street, demolition of the vehicular project parking lot. It would be occupied by new facilities for the International High school. The 98 franklin street site would include vehicular parking and bicycle space. This eir evaluates the designation of portions of or all of the hub plan area as the housing sustainability district. In accordance with Assembly Bill 73. Through adoption of an ordinance by the San Francisco board of supervisors would allow the city to exercise streamline approval of residential and mixed Development Projects meeting certain requirements. Qualifying projects would still be required to implement applicable mitigation measures identified in this eir, and would comply with adopted Design Review standards and all existing city laws and regulations. Projects that qualify under the provisions of the hst would not be subject to further Environmental Review. The draft eir finds the proposed project, even with the implementation of mitigation measures would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to Cultural Resources, transportation and circulation, the remainder of this presentation will focus on Historic Architectural resources. First i would like to provide a summary of Historical Resources located inside the hub area. The hub plan area contains humoa in read. Historic resources shown districts are shown in a variety of shades. Several of the individual resources and historic districts, within the plan area are designated under articles ten and 11 of the planning covariate the area also contains Historical Resources that were identified and passed the surveys that cover all or part of the area. [reading notes] several Additional Resources were identified through the ceqa review process. An Additional Survey was prepared in conjunction with the hub area plan eir. This survey, the hub plan Historical Resources survey, or simply the hub survey, was conducted between 2,018 and 2019 to have plan area. Along with california register of Historical Resources eligibility findings. A preliminary analysis of the hub plan area determined that 27 buildings within the hub area require new evaluations. This was because either the buildings had not been preselected for intensive level evaluation and past surveys. Were not age eligible at the time of the surveys. Meaning they were not 45 years old. Had designations or evaluations that were determined not to be sufficient for the purposes of the survey. Or, because no information came to light indicating new potential areas of significance. This had to do with lgbtq history or modern architectural history. Of the 27 buildings evaluated, five were identified as individually eligible Historic Resources. This includes the San Francisco Womens Centers at 5563 brady street. The San Francisco buyers club, then gantner and mattern Company Building at 1453 Mission Street, the mirrored flat type residential building at 16181624 Howard Street and the San Francisco Human Services Agency Building at 170 otis street. The draft eir has identified significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to Historical Resources area the first impact states that the hub plan would cause could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of individual built environment, resources and or historic districts. Foz on making this determination the draft eir considered, which would be accomplished by introducing changes in existing land controls and zoning to provide a flexibility and allowed allow land uses. Of these 18 sites, three contained listed or eligible Historic Buildings. [reading notes] could you repeat those again . Sure. Of the 18 sites where zoning controls and land uses are changing, three contain Historical Resources. These are; 170 otis street. Ninetynine south van ness. And ten south van ness. Van ness has a separate eir that has been evaluated separately. In addition to these three sites, it is anticipated that implementation of the hub plan would result in increased development throughout the hub plan area. Although implementation of the hub plan would not immediately change the significance of the horse toric resource. For the purposes of the eir analysis, foreseeable result of zoning control changes proposed under the hub plan could be demolition of the Historic Resources, or their alteration in adverse manner. Regarding districts, there draft eir has evaluated potential impacts all historic districts within or adjacent to the hub plan area and determine the plan could result in Significant Impact to one. To address the impact, the hub draft eir includes mitigation measures required for projects located on the site of Historic Resources. The first such measure would require sponsors to seek feasible means for avoiding impacts to Historic Resources, by designing a project that meets the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. A special project were not feasible, the sponsor would be required to consult with the Planning Department to determine if a feasible project that minimized the to the retention of significant architectural elements would be desirable. If avoidance of impacts to Historic Resources is determined to be infeasible, number of another mitigation measures would be required. These medications were partially compensate under the hub plan. However, because demolition of both environment resources or alteration in an adverse manner could still occur, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable, after the application of a mitigation. The second significant and unavoidable impacts, with regard, cul title i. The hub plan and accumulation would result in demolition or alteration of environment one. It determine the mitigation measures listed above would not reduce the hub plans contribution to the cumulative impact to a less than considerable level, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Other Cultural Resource impacts were determined to be less than significant, and less than significant after mitigation. I refer you to the draft eir for the full impact discussion. Department staff, and the caps on team identified seven alternatives to the hub plan, the hub hst and 98 franklin street and 30 van ness. Because these projects result in less than Significant Impacts to Historic Resources, as proposed, a discussion of the four alternatives related to these projects is omitted from this presentation. The three alternatives to the hub plan and hub hs the are as follows. Alternative a, the hub plan and hub hsd alternatives which approves the existing zoning. It assumes no adoption of the hub plan or hub hsd. Alternative b, the hub Plan Land Use only alternative, which assumes the same policies and encode a general plan amendments with the hub plan and the hsd except that the alternative would exclude the street scape and Network Improvements and alternative see, the hub plan reduced intensity alternatives which modifies the building assumptions of the 18 sites identified for height and bulk increases and requires that all projects involving Historic Resources conformed to the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. Alternative a would involve less intensive and the involvement area. It is possible even absent the hub plan and hub hsd Historical Resources could be demolished. Policies encourage but do not require retention of Historic Resources. Therefore the impact of alternative a on individual built environment resources and historic districts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Similar to the hub plan although some what reduce peak because of less develop my pressure. Alternative be the same alternative sites as the hub plan but would not involve streetscape and Street Network improvements. However because streetscape and Street Network improvements are not a major contributor to the impacts associated with them limitation of the hub plan, in an unavoidable impact to Historical Resources. Alternative c, avoiding specific built environment resources and would require substance and develop my projects located at the Historic Resources to meet the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation. Therefore, handbags to less than Significant Impact to Historic Resources. Only one alternative c would result in a less than Significant Impact to the Historic Resources. The draft eir identifies alternative see as they environmentally motive. Before the presentation ends i would like to remind everyone that a public hearing on the draft eir before the Planning Commission is scheduled for thursday august 29, 2019. Comments on the draft eir must be submitted orally at the Planning Commission hearing or in writing to the Planning Department by 5 00 p. M. On monday september 9, 2019 for them to be responded to. After the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Department will publish a response to the comment documents which will contain Department Responses to all relevant comments on the draft eir. Publication will be followed by a hearing before the Planning Commission where the Planning Commission will consider certification of the final eir. This ends my presentation. City staff and members of the project team are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Any questions . I do have a question. Could you put up the slide, the third slide i think that showed, you know, i think it was the next slide, yeah, thats the one. The area, im sorry, go back one where the districts okay. I just wanted to be sure where that was. That is an intense little residential block there. Correct . Yes. Thank you. There was a Community Sponsor proposal of a district in the area, right and we were talking about expanding that. Im not familiar with our proposal. Thats okay. Thank you. Lets open this up to public comment. Any member of the public wish to address the commission on this agenda item . Closed public comment. Commissioners . What is it that we are being asked to do . That was not clear to me. Good question. This is a draft eir on the hub area plan on the two projects, and the hsd. This is review, and comment if you have any concerns or questions on the Historic Resources portion of the draft eir. We will take on those comments, and those will be submitted to the Planning Commission, praying to their hearing and also to the er oh and they will be responded to. In the past, as i recall, when things like this, draft eir come up, the question was whether or not the commission thought there had been a fair analysis of the issues from the Historic Preservation point of view. Assuming that to be the case, whether or not the alternatives presented reasonably addressed those issues. When i looked at this, i looked at it with those questions in mind. Did i do the right thing . Or, is this supposed to be some freeforall . [laughter] i see a panicked look there. I think this is different than a proposed project. This is more complicated, perhaps commissioners, then the eir you see that a project specific. But, what we are requesting a view is the same did we do an appropriate job analyzing the impacts on Historic Resources, alternatives represent a broad enough range . That is what i wanted to be confirmed. To follow up on that, whether or not the mitigation measures we looked at were adequate . I have a couple of questions that might facilitate some conversation. On the mitigations, we have cul one eight, and the way it was presented in the presentation, that is the primary mitigation and if that is not achievable then it goes to be, c, and d. We wanted to be able to pull from both of them, its an idea that if we can get a project that we think meets the standards that we do not have an impact and we dont mitigate. There is the second step which is if the project doesnt meet standards and we can do a routine elements project then we would still pull from those areas mitigations, as well. Its sort of a combination. What we are getting out there is a process where we can try to get an approved project, but then if we cant get something that meets the standards then we would basically have a sweep of mitigations that we could apply in regards to what the project is in the building was appropriate. Two followup questions. On the individual projects, they will each individually be analyzed under ceqa and impacts . To clarify, deeming the two projects that are at 98 franklin and 30 van ness . No. All of these projects that are identified in this area that are Historic Resources. When projects come forward for those that will be a separate analysis on the impacts and if it meets the standards then it will be determined one way, if its article ten or 11 it may come before us. There is no change in article ten or 11. There is an ability with the hsd that projects would become ministerial, so that they wouldnt necessarily have a separate ceqa document. And then the variety of other mitigations would still apply through how the ordinance is implemented. That would be the case for those projects that are ministerial. What we would do is Community Planning exemption which is our standard process what we do with easter neighborhoods or central soma projects. The goal here was to try to build those mitigations into the plan so that each project knew in advance what they were and how they were route. Thats kind of a twostep approach her. When projects move forward they will still be able to rely on the plan and the mitigation measures of that plan and move forward without having to deal on a more expensive Environmental Impact report or an analysis, they can rely on the plan exemption. The hst which is the housing sustainability district is relatively new concept. The one that was adopted for central soma was the first in the state. This relies on a bill that was put forward by in three years ago now, that basically says if you have a recently adopted 2018015774coa and plan, that establishes mitigations that does what it is supposed to do in that eir. The city can designate housing sustainability, or housing projects are not completely ministerial. No separate review, no ceqa so we can approve them. I think we have a very limited timeframe like four months to approve them. We just established the first one in central soma. The city can establish its own parameters. Only a project up to 16 defeat, i think, can but, the hope is to do the same thing here in the hub. Projects a certain size, or whatever can be approved ministerial e. In which case, we would still have the mitigation measures to rely on. Otherwise if we didnt have the mitigation measures for Historic Resources in their we would not be able to consider Historic Resources in this hsd process. Its a little bit unusual, its a new animal, but that is our approach. There wont be any project related eirs . Probably not. We dont know for sure. But probably not. There could be other environmental documents that tear off of it, yes. There is a lot of information that was presented so i may not have found it, may its in here. Where does it say that one a is the first step and if not achievable it goes if i had a proposed project could i comments i am going to mitigate this and please give me my approvals . How do we make sure that does not happen . Sure. The only thing, planning staff, in mitigation measure cul 1b, he begins by saying where avoidance is not feasible where as in measure cul 1a. They shall undertake and that it lists the additional mitigation measures. This wasnt covered in the presentation but it is in the text. Okay. Cleverly disguised. Before you sit down, i dont have the text of it in front of me, could you identify alternate c again. I just need a summary, not a detail. I just want the basic. I think i understand. Alternate c assumes reduced intensity, in the 18 develop meant. It also requires that projects that involve Historic Resources conformed to the secretary of interiors standards. That is one of the three alternatives not the proposed project . Correct. This would assume, a number of the sites are tiny, they are like a 25 by 100 site or something. This would assume that there would be different height and bulk requirements for those 18 sites, is that what this is saying . Not that have been defined, but yes. We would basically need a project that meets the standards. We would need flexibility on that. We havent gotten into establishing height and bulk in relationship to the alternatives that would be effectively the requirements. I have one last, we talked about this, the language here on the elements, for the sake of the commission can you explain to us, this has been incorporated previously, but we are in the process of developing our own retains elements of policy for direction to give direction to the public. Can you give us a little background of how we got to this language i wanted be used previously. In the central selma eir, there is a similar mitigation that we base this mitigation on which basically has the department and the project sponsor review whether or not saving the projects, that meets the standards is feasible. So then we have them prepare a feasibility report, that basically is similar but not exactly the same as the alternative process. They look at their proposed project, they go through what the project goals are, and then they look at if they were to keep a building or a portion of the building how feasible is that and then staff looks at that and determines whether or not that project does appear feasible from a variety of angles to get if not then there is a variety of mitigations that are required that are similar to the ones here. The process has been slightly refined to point out what youre saying, which is that if the project does not meet the standards, but it does retain some elements in this additional mitigation. We refined it a little bit to make it clearer since we have the retained elements in draft form, that would be one of the documents we can utilize from the staffs review and from project sponsors to have an understanding about what we mean by that. Does not help clarify . With a project like that come before the commission, there are many projects that are Historic Resources that have to go through the eir process, often, almost all the time that comes before the arc. Would that be a similar thing. Of her project was going through that, if its not going through an eir process because this is here but then it will not be seen because its administrative. Thats correct. They are not going through the fall or process and coming through the arc in that regard. Our task is to provide any comments and there is two pieces , there is the plan and then there is the two specific projects, and that two specific projects dont seem to have any issues, the impacts have been mitigated print unless we have further comment than that they were just pointing that out. Do we have any response or guidance to staff on this . I had a couple of thoughts, i was looking out the 18 particular properties and it seemed to me that the potential of those being affected in any significant way was small. That is why i asked about that small district, because, you know, i mean, they are individual sites. Someone would, you know, literally have to, you know, by out, you know, 38 sites to get a big enough footprint to, you know, because youre not going to build 160foot high building on a site that is 25 by, you know, 100. It seemed to me that the area was relatively safe, and then, the building that is on Mission Street, i forgot the number, i forgot the name of it, there is one on Mission Street that is a substantial building. Not one of the one on Market Street are already significant buildings. It didnt seem like there was the potential for a huge amount of impact relative to the plan, the proposed plan. That is why i was asking about clearly the alternates a dont do anything, and alternate b seems odd. You know, c that was a question, we are and the staff to review the process which i feel perfectly comfortable with. You know, to go through that. You know, my comments are that i dont think any of the alternatives make a lot of sense , relative to the project. That is how i see it. I think the potential impact is very, very small. V. P. Matsuda i think as a commission we would want to put forward some recommendations. Alternative c would be the one we would want to that make sense. Yeah. The three projects when i asked you to restate them. We talked about those three, because as different than the previous information, right . Ten south van ness, 99 south van ness and 170 south otis, are we evaluating the impacts during this process here . I think so. Just to clarify. Two projects getting approval through the draft eir. Those are the 30 van ness and 98 franklin street, they dont have impacts to Historic Resources so that is why we did not bring them to you previously. The other projects are getting up zoned. Those are the sites where we have identified Historic Resources. Those are called out more specifically. A more direct impact of the potential plan. There were two projects that stuck out, and i dont remember what the second one is, but its one of these three. Ten south 2019001734pta van ness, thats the old honda dealer. This scheme is showing a single tower. I recall the post project is a double tower did not get involved . I think this is just showing the height and bulk. It should be taken one way or the other. Just to clarify, the two tower scheme would occur if the zoning did not change. The current height limit is 400 feet. The reason i bring that up is because we were presented with information on that particular project, as if the resource cannot be maintained because of the impacts to the foundation. If its a single tower, it could be moved. I dont know where we are at in the process. One of the challenges is it is a triangular site. There is not very places to put the tower. If theres a single tower, theres more than if there is two. That may be out of the gate, we are potentially not want to see it again. The other one was a really cool midcentury building. I dont remember if it was 170 otis . 170 otis. What will happen without . Coming out of this process, it seems like that building will have to be demolished because one order for a tower to be built there. I think there is also, its a cityowned building. It doesnt have the height. No, but we are raising the height limit. One of the challenges of that building is the seismic condition. It is really just matching the height district to what exists today. Right now, the way the parcel is mapped, it doesnt reflect what is on the ground. Its updating the height to reflect what is there. We are not really increasing capacity. You are trying to make it clear with the zoning options, or requirements, or limits are about site . As a project comes forward on that site, are we going to see it again . Will there be another draft eir on that . That particular zoning increase was not that great though. It would not support a big tower. I think the zoning was 160 feet, that project, i mean, that building is 85. It is up to 150. We are moving the 150 feet designation to the portion of the building that is already that height. That is what im saying. We are not increasing the capacity of that site we are just matching what exists. 99 south van ness, dotson art deco, Storage Building right now that seemed like a very challenging site to add onto, because it is so narrow, you know, it is, as well. It seems like that would be a challenge for a developer to come in and try to do Something Big there. Our young i am not familiar with the scale of it. Its that is why we trust the staff to say, you know, what would be the process there. That seems like its almost, may it is land markable. It is this an exquisite example of art deco at that time. Does staff ever have the discretion, assuming that this goes forward does the staff otherwise, outside of the eir have discretion to refer anything to the Historic Preservation commission . I mean, you have the ability to review and comment on Environmental Review and relationship to environmental resources. I could do for this to the attorney. But yes, we could, if that became an issue. The Historic Preservation commission request to review any project in regards to its historic resource. If it came to us it would be a review, and it would just be a comment, under this plan, if some Historic Building came to us it would still just be a, right . We have one comment. Any others . I think its well done. Very good. We can move on to item number eight, 2018015774coa at 15, this is a certificate of appropriateness. We will hear from staff first, then you have an opportunity. Good afternoon commissioners, shannon ferguson, Department Staff. This is a request for certificate of appropriateness for the property at 581 waller street. Constructed circa 1900 and the queen annes library at a contributor to both parks historic districts. The proposed project is to abate planning enforcement case. In august of 2016, the hpc granted historic appropriateness. [reading notes] current work undertaken at the subject property does not reflect the design approved by the hpc and was completed without benefit of a permit. Specifically removal of the entire roof, removal of all interior structural framework. Removal of the entire fourth floor plates, and removal of the entire rear elevation. The project proposes to restore the first 12 seat 11 inches of the room behind the gable at the existing ridge height and existing 45 degrees slope. Restore the fourth floor plate of the same level as existing, and restore the rear elevation with framing and new tongue and roof horizontal siding. As well as insert additional skylights at the refer a total of six mountain skylights. In addition, i wanted to note that project sponsors did misrepresent in august 2,018 to planning staff revision. It specifically states that the dormers to be revised back to the original configuration. Staff approval specifically states that the permit is to revise permits back to 315. However the proposed roof plan shows dormers much larger in size and volume. This type of expansion would require neighborhood notification under section 311 of the planning covariate the plan also shows revisions to the rear elevations. The description of work on the permit makes no mention of these revisions. Regarding the proposed work to the planning enforcement case, staff has determined that the work and additional new work with the recommended conditions as outlined in your case report will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article ten of the planning code. The secretary of standards and will be compatible with the character defining features of the landmark district. Based on analysis, staff recommends approval with the following conditions. Dormers be constructed as per the hpc motion, number 315. South elevation as approved for the previous Building Permit. This elevation is proposed in this permit is more contemporary and compatible with the subject property in the district. New glass panes be from the primary wall. Also that though would guard rails be constructed at the roof and roof decks, and a trellis on the second floor of the south elevation. As part of the Building Permit, planning staff, preservation staff would conduct a final site visit to confirm and harrison action has been abated. This concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I have a question, is there anything that gives you any confidence that we wont be down this same road again . I dont mean personally, i mean, the department. The project architect is here. Can we get a presentation . I am eliza, i am the architect to get. Did you want to address the commission and give us a response . Well, just to say that this project has been reviewed by the Preservation Commission and the only visible difference from the right away is the addition of a skylight, the profile of the dormer from the front has not changed at all. And that during the demolition and during the work that is being done, the house is in bad shape, it is a fixerupper. The contractors discovered that the framing was not a very good condition. They exceeded what was shown on the plans because they just saw bad framing and they just wanted to replace it with code compliance are framing as well. There was also a requirement for a ridge beam, it would have been easier to build the roof by replacing the roof rather than working with the existing to install it ridge beam. That doesnt quite its interesting information, but it doesnt answer my question which is what is there that would allow us to think that the owner, and his troops will not, once again, violate all of the permits, or the conditions under which it is supposed to fix up the building . Because the fact that they like to complete the project, the project has been on hold for almost a year now, and they learn through enforcement that this is a terrible thing. They would do what is shown in the plan. They want to finish it. Its been on hold. Does that answer your question . It is an answer, some particularly satisfactory. As shannon explained they will send someone out to a field inspection. I will report to the contractor that that is going to happen. They have the interest, they have goodwill. They are not trying to slip anything by anybody. Theyre just trying to get it done. We do have Planning Division that has an active enforcement case on this project. Its part of the conditions of approval, that shannon mentioned, they will be required to have a site visit to make sure that the modifications are followed. Tran21 question, are you, and his is the owner okay with the conditions of approval . That is the first i heard of it. We would like the dormer enlarged to what our most recent permit approval was. Other than that, we are fine with everything. I did have a question here. Where there any fines assessed for this . This is related to where supervisor peskin came out about Historic Buildings that may have intentionally, or not intentionally being demolished, or exceeding their scope. We do have our enforcement staff here and they can answer that question. Kelly wong, im the preservation enforcement planner , scientific case. There were no penalties assessed because we issued no enforcement, and they did within the timeframe submit a revision permit. And also a new seat of a two ring support before the Historic Preservation commission. Are we okay with the conditions as staff has given them. If we are, the only thing we have to decide on is the dormers we have been told that there is enforcement action, i assume that that means that the people representing the department who are supposed to be looking over this will do so with diligence. I am unclear about the dormer. The architecture said, before you say anything, i just want to clarify my question. My understanding is that this has to be rebuilt per the original h. P. C. C of a witch has smaller dormers. That is not my question. My question is about, you just asked that you are able to rebuild the dormer to a bigger size. The staff seems to be saying, know that is not the case. It has to meet the requirements, the smaller dormer that was a requirement before. I think that was one of the questions that commission hyland was asking despite the fact that you may want to bigger, are you okay with it, because to meet the mitigation measures, or the conditions, im sorry, to meet the conditions you would have to rebuild the dormers to the previously approved size. That is really the question if you guys are okay with that, or are you asking for the bigger dormer . We would like to ask for the bigger dormer. Its like 2 feet bigger. Its easier to build, on page 1. 4 a, if you look at the two roof plans, the dormer extends to the Property Line on the one we would like, its just in from the Property Line. Its just slightly bigger. On the Southeast Side . Correct. You can see that little notch on the right hand drawing okay. Thank you. The question for the staff, thank you, is there any particular reason why that is approvable or not approvable from a staff point of view . Dormers just an increase in size, and going all the way to the edge of the ridge line, so there is no really, kind of a sense of what the refuse to to be in the back. It goes all the way back. I know we are keeping it in the front, but it would be nice to see a ridgeline and the roof in. Is this a property that can be seen . No. It is not. As you know, both parks landmark district it is the first three properties of face the part. This one does not face the park. No. Yeah. I mean, i guess im inclined if this was before us originally, would we have approved it . I think we would have. I would be okay with changing this first condition. I dont know what other commissioners thing. It seems like they have cooperated, they continue to cooperate. If this was before us originally we may have approved it. I also wanted to say that ive been in positions where you open up a house, and all of a sudden you find that, you know, it is rotted out. This is not the case here. That is what we were just told. That is not the case . If there was dry rot they would have called the building inspector and they would have issued a notice of correction and there was no notice of correction here. I think a larger dormer would require a 311 notice. It would. That is the issue. Again, two options we approved with the conditions or we alter the conditions. I have a question for the architect again. Knowing that this you have to go through this process, and go through a 311 notification. We will go back to what was originally approved to avoid that. We want to move forward. Its been on hold for so long. That answers the question. Thank you. We dont have to modify anything. And make a motion to approve with the conditions as stated. Second. Nothing further commissioners, a that has been seconded to approve this matter. [roll call] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 500. Placing us on item nine, case number 2019001734pta 149 9th street. This is a major permit to alter. Good afternoon commissioners. Planning Department Staff. The application before you is a request for a major permit to at 149 9th street. Article 11, category three contributory building of contextual importance located within the regional commercial zoning district. This a Corner Property is developed with a fourstory brick industrial building constructed in 1923, as the headquarters of the western leather manufacturing company. The ninth street facade are both visible from the public rightofway. This project includes restoration of two window veins on to mystery elevation i work at the roof level including a roof deck with glazed railing and new stair and elevator penthouses. Only portions of the new penthouses would be visible from ninth street. All scopes of work proposed in this entitlement were previously reviewed by this commission in december of 2018, part of the Building Change of use under h. P. C. Resolution 1004. The adopted resolution was included as an exhibit in your packets today. The department has not received any written letters of opposition or support regarding the project. Given the limited availability of new rooftop features, the set back provide a for new penthouses and the fact the visible penthouses are fairly common in the visible area. The proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article 11 of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. Based on the analysis found in the case report, staff therefore recommends approval with the following conditions. First part of the Building Permit the project sponsor shall provide final material samples to Department Staff for review and approval. Second as part of the Building Permits, the project sponsor shall contact preservation staff for review and approval of the onsite mockup, prior to full installation. Third, the proposed trellis shall be restricted to 9 feet 2 inches in height measure from the surface of the roof. This condition is intended to to shape the roof deck but prevented from rapping the tallest portion of the elevator penthouse as currently proposed. A final note, ninth street has been us misidentified as ninth avenue in your case reports and a couple of instances. This error will be revised in the final motion. This concludes my presentation. The project sponsor is in attendance i will make a short presentation. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Think you may have misspoken that you said it was involving ninth avenue did i just now say . You did. I live on ninth avenue. I was reading into the record we will change that. Thank you. Is five minutes sufficient . It is. Thank you. Good afternoon. On behalf of the private sponsor, we would like to keep the project at ninth street, and go to ninth avenue. [laughter] i will be very brief. Our architect is here, the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.