Transcripts For SFGTV Historic 20240703

You when the item youre interested comes up, please raise your hand using the raised hand function for those persons calling in to submit their testimony, please call area code 415 a6550001 and enter access. Code 26608288973. And then press pound twice twice. Wait for the item you are interested in speaking to and for Public Comment to be announced to comment, you must enter star three to raise your hand and once youve raised your hand you will hear the a prompt that you have raised your hand to ask a question. Please wait to speak until the host calls on you. When you hear that you are unmuted, that is your indication when to begin speaking. Best practices are to call from a quiet location and please mute the volume on your television or computer for those persons attending in city hall, please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Please speak clearly and slowly. And if you care to state your name for the record, i will ask that we all silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And at this time i will take Roll Commission president matsuda here, Commission Vice president warren here. Commissioner foley, present. Commissioner vergara here and commissioner right here. Thank you, commissioners. First on our agenda is general Public Comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items. Your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached. In the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. Again if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three. Seeing no one in the chambers coming forward, lets go to our remote caller. Hello. Good afternoon. This is Michael Petrelis calling in. Im represent fat friends, friends and allies of the castro theater. Im calling in because the mismanagement of the castro theater by another Planet Entertainment has basically killed the castro theater. There have been at least 240 dark nights. So since i took over the theater in january of 2022, looking at their calendar from now until the end of january 2024, we see that there will be at least 160 dark nights at the castro theater. And when i say dark nights, i mean there are no movies there are no musical concerts, there are no lectures scheduled. So even though the Historic Preservation commission has already voted on to give another planet what they want to renovate the interior of the castro theater, i think its important to remind the members that you basically kill old what was a movie palace. And in addition to no programing at the theater, unfortunately lately there is very little foot traffic in the castro commercial corridor because there are no programs, especially on the weekends when right now we would expect there to be matinee screenings of the movie barbie bringing lots of school kids, lots of fans of the doll barbie to the castro neighborhood. Thats not happening. We have absolutely no commitment from another planet to change their management in terms of bringing in any sort of programing to this theater. Its really a shame that we are witnessing not just the death of the castro theater and the serious diminishment of film culture in the city, but we are seeing that the castro neighborhood is not in any way benefiting from the vote that this commission took a few months ago in favor of another planet. I would ask the Commission Members to take a stroll on the castro on the weekends when there are no programing and see just what a dead space the castro theater is right now. Thank you for listening. Okay, last call. Last call for general Public Comment for items not on todays agenda. Seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners, we can move on to department matters. Item one department announcements. Good afternoon, commissioners. Rich Sucre Department staff. I just wanted to provide an update with you on our Public Meeting from last week on the new Historic Resource review application. We had a great attendance with about 40 people in attendance, including two of our commissioners. So thank you very much for coming. We are basically open towards receiving feedback at this point at our application is live and were accepting new Historic Resource review applications. Keep in mind that this application is meant to basically consolidate the three separate applications that we have. People file for Historic Resource review. So it doesnt change any of our work relative. To stewarding and protecting our Historic Resources or undertaking our obligation under the California Environmental quality act. So i have sent out messages to the attendees, and if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out. According to me, the other items id like to update you on include your landmark designation work program. We recently received a referral from supervisor ronen to initiate landmark designation on the Grand Theater in the mission. In addition, and i cant remember if i mentioned this last time, but we also received a referral from supervisor melgar to initiate landmark designation on the westwood gates. So our staff are working on both of those applications or initiate motions accordingly. And so youll see both of those designation reports within the next couple of months. Finally i just want to make sure youre aware of an open forum that we are hosting in conjunction with the African American arts and culture cultural district on the African American Historic Context statement. So we have finally set a date which is amazing. And we are hosting an open forum on monday, september 25th, starting at 4 p. M. And going till 7 p. M. The intent of the forum is to basically highlight the African American Historic Context statement, share out the good news, collect more stories that might be relevant to its production. As you know, you saw in january of this year, we hosted a draft of the version and so weve been working with Community Members to host an additional meeting, a Community Meeting specifically to kind of make sure we basically both promote and vet any other info version thats contained within that document. So we hope that you will all be able to attend and i will also forward information to you directly in your emails and that concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you. Um, i, commissioner rivera and i attended the hrr discussion and i thought it was very good. So whats the next step on that . Is that like an iterative process of you collecting the comments and then youll receive them, review them, consolidate them, and then create some kind of draft . Correct. So what we will do from this stage is collect all the comments that were receiving on the application. Then i will then sit down with the other preservation managers and we will revise the application accordingly and or provide additional clarification on. And then what ill do is send out a bullet pointed list of what weve updated and or clarified subsequent to that application. Great great. And then on the African American Historic Context statement, if you could receive send the document, i think it would be helpful and have it somewhere. Theyre very prominent on the website so others can take a look at that and i can forward it on and hopefully get others to join us that day. Thank you. Okay. If theres nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to commission matters item to consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for august 16th, 2023 members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Once again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three. Seeing no request to speak commissioners Public Comment on your minutes is closed and they are now before you motion to approve. Second, thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt your minutes. Commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner wright. Yes. Commissioner foley i. Commissioner nageswaran yes. And Commission President matsuda yes. So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0 and will place us on item three. Commission comments and questions. Are there any commission comments or questions as. Okay, seeing none, we can move on to item four. The San Francisco Historical Society, us bank matter. This was added to your agenda for you to consider post possibly drafting a letter or something. Yes. Thank you. So commissioners, we were contacted by the San Francisco Historical Society to request that we write letters to the new to, i guess, management of us bank. These are the successors of the union bank of california. And prior to the bank became forming the us bank , there were some very serious and committed conversation sessions about having some of the historical artifacts that was owned by the union bank, Mitsubishi Union financial group, to be donated to the San Francisco Historical Society and as sometimes it happens, it got lost in transition. And so we have been asked to write to the president s and ceo, as well as the Corporate Responsibility officer and the chief Financial Officer of Us Bancorp Center to make our inquiry and our strong letter of support to have those artifacts be brought back to the Historical Society. So this is an action item, i understand. So if i can ask for somebody to make a motion for us to send the letter off and it will be signed by me, make a motion to send the letter to the us bank. Second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion. Then to support brought a letter from Commission President matsuda, representing the Historic Preservation Commission Regarding us Bank Commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner wright. Yes. Commissioner foley. High commissioner warren yes. And commissioner. President matsuda. Thank you. Yes. So move commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0 and will place us on under consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item five, case number 2021 hyphen 010176 coa for the property at 2259 through 2261 fillmore street a certificate of appropriateness is proposed for continuance to september 20th, 2023 members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on on this item only on the matter of continuance. Again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no requests to speak Public Comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you commissioners. Is there a motion motion to continue . Second, thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue item five to september 20th, commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner wright yes. Commissioner foley i. Commissioner warren. Yes. Commissioner. President matsuda yes. Some of commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0, placing us under your regular calendar for item six. Case number 2022 hyphen 004374 coa for the property at 100 columbus avenue a certificate of appropriateness. I believe. Commissioner wright, you have a request to recuse . Yes, id like to request for to be recused from this item. Do we have a motion to motion to recuse . Second, thank you commissioners on that motion to recuse. Commissioner wright. Commissioner vergara yes, commissioner wright. Yes. Commissioner foley. I commissioner warren. Yes. Commissioner president matsuda. Yes. So moved. Commissioners commissioner wright, you are hereby recused and will request that you leave the chambers. Good afternoon, commissioners. Rebecca salgado, planning staff before for you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to 100 columbus avenue located at the Northeast Corner of columbus avenue and jackson street. The property is a contributor to the article ten landmark district, Jackson Square landmark district, and was constructed in 1907. Id like to note for the record that the certificate of appropriate this is executive summary and motion have been slightly revised to include an additional condition of approval related to any accidental discovery of archeological resources, which was inadvertently left out of the hearing packet. I have hard copies on hand of the Relevant Pages of the updated executive executive summary and motion with the additional condition of approval highlighted and im also happy to go over the specifics of so desired. The project proposes to change the use of the existing rear courtyard open area from a Public Parking lot to a one story plus Basement Office building with surrounding landscaping. The new building will provide Additional Office space for a company that currently has office and retail space at 809 and 831. Montgomery street, whose rear lot lines adjoin the existing rear open area at 100 columbus avenue to existing nonhistoric gates at the columbus avenue and jackson street, frontages will be replaced in association with this change of use with all other proposed work to occur in the rear open area. The Planning Commission will also consider a request for a conditional use authorization at an upcoming hearing to be held on september 14th, 2023. Staff finds that the proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements of article ten and the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. The proposed work will not modify the existing retail and residential uses at the 100 columbus avenue building. The proposed new one story Office Building and landscaping will not be physically attached to the historic 100 columbus avenue building and will be entirely located within the existing rear open area, which is minimally visible from the street. The two gates proposed to be replaced at the columbus avenue and jackson street. Frontages are not historic, and the new gates installed in their place will not damage or obscure any distinctive features of the Historic Building, the new Office Building and gates will have a simple contemporary design that is compatible with the existing building and district. But also does not create a false sense of history based on preliminary archeological review completed by the Planning Departments Cultural Resource staff, the project was determined to not result in significant impacts to archeological resources, as, however, if any archeology resources are discovered during the projects. Soil disturbing activities. The accidental discovery measure, which is included as a condition of approval, would ensure that unanticipated, unanticipated resources are appropriately treated. Staffs preliminary recommendation for this project is for approval with conditions after packets for this hearing were published, planning staff received three additional letters of support for the project, but these letters were forwarded to the commissioners and copies are also available for your review. This concludes my presentation. Unless there are any questions and the project sponsor also has a brief presentation of the project. Project sponsor. Youll have five minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is matt cerny. Im from lovefrom. Were a Creative Collective that specializes in multiple design disciplines. Love from was founded in Jackson Square in 2019 and were excited to present this project, which expands on our base of operations in a neighborhood that has a rich history of design and creativity. We are a small team and our work necessitate necessitates collaboration. Were seeking to create an inspiring space that sparks creativity and innovation. And our hope is to showcase the neighborhood as a high profile, lively commercial district for locals and visitors , and to preserve the unique fabric of Jackson Square. The project before you seeks to replace the rear parking lot at 100 columbus with a modest single Story Building surrounded by new landscaping and to replace nonhistoric gates on the existing buildings. Columbus avenue and jackson street, frontages with new gates. Elisa skaggs of page and turnbull will briefly discuss the compatibility of the project with the historical district and my colleague, Design Architect James Mcgrath will briefly discuss the projects design. Thank you for your time and we hope that you approve lovefrom certificate of appropriateness. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is elisa skaggs and im with page and turnbull page and turnbull is the project is a preservation architect for this project. Concert constructed in 1907, 100 columbus is located at the corner of columbus avenue and jackson street and is a contributor to the Jackson Square Historic District at the exterior of 100. Columbus retains integrity, though its been altered, most notably in 1973, when the center storefront along columbus avenue was approved to be removed via a certificate of appropriateness to provide access to the lot behind the building. Its the lot behind 100 columbus. Thats the subject of the certificate of this certificate of appropriateness. The lot is hidden from view surrounds it on all sides by buildings fronting pacific Montgomery Jackson streets and columbus avenue. It has been used for parking and at one time had a parking garage shown in the top left photo, as shown in these photos. The parking lot is utility korean in nature and has not attained significance in its own right and does not contribute to the character of 100 columbus. As shown in the sorry the proposed project is on the right is limited to the construction of a small pavilion within the lot that will not be visible from the public right of way and therefore will not impact the Jackson Square Historic District. But the pavilions construction will be independent of the surrounding buildings so that no historic fabric is impacted. It will have a simple contemporary design, but will be compatible with the district and the immediate buildings in scale and materials, namely brick, wood, steel and glass. The project includes two features that will be visible to existing utilitarian gates along columbus and jackson will be replaced with new gates that have a simple design. The gates will be largely transparent with an esthetic that improves the pedestrian experience. And ill turn it over to my colleague james. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is James Mcgrath and im a Design Architect with lovefrom. Here we see columbus avenue entrance to the courtyard with the existing roller shutter on gate on the left and our proposed design on the right. Our design maintains transparency and is in keeping with the neighborhood both in its design and its materials. The proposed material for the gate is steel with a natural patina. Metalized finish. The finish is monochromatic, with a slight variation to the hue and tone, and the colors range from a medium to a dark bronze brown. We propose to replace the existing solid roller shutter gates to the jackson street entrance with a new hinged gate similar in design to the proposed closed columbus avenue gate. This gate will also be more transparent and so improving the public experience from the sidewalk. This elevation here shows that the gate replacement will not affect the existing adjacent elevations of 100 columbus avenue or 530 jackson street. The proposed design you see here is a single story brick, steel, glass and wood multipurpose building which supports the lovefrom office. The design is modest in scale. The top of the building is no higher than the first story of the existing 100 columbus building. The pavilion. The pavilion building is designed to be sympathetic to the neighborhood and its proposed materials and its position in the courtyard are in keeping with the neighbor. How much time would you need . Oh, im just okay. Yeah. These views show the design in context. The courtyard and surrounding buildings. They also show the proposed greening or landscaping of the space that was previously a surface parking lot. Were excited to be in Jackson Square and we love the neighborhood and were very happy to be good stewards of these buildings. We thank you very much for your time and we hope youll approve lovefrom application for the certificate of appropriate appropriateness. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Again if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three. So seeing no members of the public requests to speak, Public Comment is closed. This item is now before you commissioners. Thank you, commissioners. Mr. Nungesser, did you want to make a comment . No commissioner foley. So i walk by 100 columbus, probably five times a week. I live in the neighborhood and i am super excited about this project. I dont even know what to say, how excited i am. I think the gates are great. I think entering the surface parking lot and putting a cute little building with trees in there is phenomenal. I welcome you to the neighborhood. I will continue to walk by it on my way to hickory katan and to work out. So thank you very much. Thank you. Any other commissioners. Commissioner vergara. Well, i just called Public Comment, sir. Did you want to speak to it . Well, hold on just a second. Through the chair. Would you like to reopen the Public Comment . We will reopen Public Comment. The building next door at 530 jackson street. My children were born there. Ive lived there for 25 years. And i have a business there. So im there 24 hours a day and im absolutely so excited about this because weve seen what the neighborhood is historical. It is. And weve tried to keep it up ourselves, but this is a something that is fantastic for the neighborhood and for the city. Thank you. Thank you. Okay okay. Last call for Public Comment. Okay. Come on up, folks. I mean, hello. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is michael veloso. Im a partner at Jackson Square financial, a Financial Advisory firm located at 48 gold street. We own our building. I am also the president of the Jackson Square Merchants Association and the Jackson Square Historic District association. Ive served on the board and remain close contact with the Barbary Coast neighborhood association, whose boundaries include Jackson Square and im also a current board member of downtown of the downtown partnership, which is the cbd, whose boundaries include Jackson Square, myself and my partners at Jackson Square financial are in strong support of love from acquiring a certificate of appropriateness. The project really adds to the energy and vibrancy of the neighborhood and aids in the economic recovery of greater downtown. By enliven the retail spaces surrounding 100 columbus further. For i have seen the proposed design is similar to what we what they presented here and i believe it to be thoughtful and in keeping and enhancing the neighborhoods historic character. I would strongly urge the commission to approve the certificate of appropriateness. Thank you. Hi, george ravel. Im a Small Business owner on jackson street , a neighbor to lovefrom. Ive been watching their project and have been on, you know, its a big project going on in the neighborhood and theyve been incredibly thoughtful, all partners in Jackson Square and ive been really impressed with what theyve done and how theyve treated the neighbors and included us in everything thats going on. And to the level of which that theyve done all of their projects throughout the neighborhood. So im in support of what theyre doing in Jackson Square. I think it will be good for my business Going Forward and couldnt couldnt be happier to have them in the neighborhood. And as a as a partner on jackson street. So thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Not to sound like a broken record, but my name is eric haywood. I am the director of retail for the cultural nonprofit called the eames institute. Out of infinite curiosity, it is related to the collection of holdings, things that belong to charles and ray eames, generally considered the greatest designer american designers of the 20th century as part of our mission of preserving the eames legacy, weve looked around at other important design legacies, and in october of 2022 purchased william stout, architectural books, a landmark architecture and design bookstore located across the street from lovefrom at 803. Did i have that right . 804 montgomery 803 then needless to say, if i were to in the dusty basement of stout, have found a lamp and rubbed a magic genie out of it, that gave me one wish of who a neighbor could be to share our mission in revitalizing the Design Community of Jackson Square, i would have requested love from and our conversations with them so far have been completely invigorate ing about our joint visions for creating a vibrant city epic space centered around architecture, design and community in Jackson Square. Were very excited to be there. Our shop has been there for 35 years in that space, so needless to say, we support and very much hope that you will approve this certificate of appropriateness. Thank you. Hello. Hello my name is gina peterson. Im here with the postscript collective, which is at 409 jackson when its on the corner of jackson and montgomery, we just opened a cafe. My husband, stuart and i owned the building as well, so. And i am a manager of that building. Weve been doing renovation on that building for a while and its been so wonderful to have such great neighbors to also really be thoughtful about the design and the keeping the Historical Preservation in addition to owning, like i said, owning and running. Postscript i am the manager of the building at 409 jackson and we also are tenants of the building as well as owners of the building and of businesses. There and how how deeply invested we are in Jackson Square. Were thrilled that lovefrom is in the neighborhood. And like everyone else has said, it is so nice to have somebody so thoughtful post script and my husband, stuarts company artists, we are both in strong support of love, love from acquiring a certificate of appropriateness and their expansion. Weve seen the designs as well and we just id like to strongly urge you, commissioners, to approve love fromms project. Thank you. Okay. Last call for Public Comment on this item. Again if youre in the chambers, please come forward. And if youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three. Seeing no request to speak, Public Comment is closed and now this item is. Thank you. Commissioner rivera, did you want to make a comment . No need to. Okay. I uh, commissioner nageswaran. I just wanted to clarify, miss salgado, if the renderings that we just saw in the slideshow are different than what was in the packet. Uh, yes, i believe the, the main difference is that the gates have become more transparent, arent that is a recent development arent. But the, the design team could speak maybe further to that as well just to confirm but could i see the images once again of the two gates. I, i think i saw the second smaller gate fairly well, but i didnt see the first gate as clearly. Yes, we revised the design to make it more transparent. There was a comment that was made about making sure there was full transparency. So the one on the right, sorry, go back. Sorry. I can see i can see this one clearly. The one is quite small. So im just wanting to see if it has the same, um, vertical. Its the same vertical elements as the, as the small one. So that both the same design rather than the metal screen. Thats correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it was, it was a comment to make it more transparent and you dont happen to have a drawing of that that image because its very difficult to see in this maybe can zoom in a little bit. Can we can i can email one of your files that is a drawing. Yeah i , i can i can call one up if. Yes, please. Primarily because i want to make sure that we have that on the record that its different than what was submitted. And that provides a little bit better view. Commissioner naragasooran i zoomed in. Still. Oh yeah. Now if i tilt this a little bit better, i see. Its pretty simple. It has simple pickets and painted steel. Okay. Thank you. Did you want to see the drawing . Yeah. If they have a drawing, that would be helpful as well. Just to see the two two gates side by side would be helpful. Skaggs are you able to put the renderings together. Are we able to plug in another device to this constitution . I think yeah. If you put it on your screen, you can use the overhead one here. Okay. Oh thats better. Oh yeah, i can tell. I see. And could you show me the other gate as well just so i can see what the. Sorry. The other smaller gate so i can see what, how theyre related. The proposed gate. Right. The correct the proposed gate for the other smaller gate. Ah. Okay. You can just move it up and down. There you go. Okay, great. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. So one is a swinging gate. One is an overhead gate or are they both swinging gates . Okay sir, ill have to ask you to speak into the microphone. Theyre both swinging gates. The larger gate has a single swing gate and then a bifold folding back for the other. The other larger sections. Okay very good. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Motion to approve. Ill second. Thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness. Commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner foley i, commissioner warren. Yes. Commissioner matsuda. Yes. So move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 4 to 0. Commissioner wright if you could raise rejoin us in the chambers, please. We can move on to item seven for case number 20. 23. Hyphen 00799 coa for the property at 740 tennessee street. Also a certificate of appropriateness. If you could, can you give us a second until. Yeah yeah. Im just setting up. Hello. Great. Thank you. Great. Thank you. All right. Ready all right. Good afternoon, commissioners. Gretel gunther. Planning Department Staff. The item before you requests a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 740 tennessee street between 18th and 19th streets. The subject property was built circa 1881 and is a contributor to the dogpatch landmark district. The subject property is a four story, four unit residential building built in a vernacular style of architecture. The project before you abates planning enforcement case number. 2019 004570e and f for work completed beyond the scope of what was previously approved under Historic Preservation Commission Motion number 0414 for the project includes legalization of changes to the basement level and interior floor plan. Legalization of ground floor entry alterations, legalization of two court and steel planter slash diverters installed at both sides of the garage door, opening on the front facade legalization of a jacuzzi on the roof deck, legalization of a six foot tall metal gate slash fence at the front Property Line on the North Elevation installed with vertical pickets instead of a cross grid design and legalization of repair only instead of replacement of an existing 12 foot six inch chain link fence, these scopes of work will not damage or destroy distinguishing original qualities or the character of the subject building or of the dogpatch landmark district. The project, as proposed by the project sponsor, would also include the legalization of mechanical equipment at the ground floor on the exterior of the north. Elevation legalization of a 22 inch tall exterior wood chase slash soffit above the ground floor attached to the North Elevation wall in rear infill of five window openings at the ground floor and interior infill of the half moon window on the front facade below the peak of the gable, the project sponsor also proposes additional new scopes of work that have not yet been undertaken, including installation of a new ten foot tall, solid steel gate slash fence at the North Elevation on set ten feet in from the front Property Line and installation of two new condenser units at the ground floor of the exterior of the south. Elevation staff recommend that the following four modifications to the project modification one relocate all mechanical Equipment Installed and proposed on the exterior of the ground floor of the north and south elevations to the interior of the subject. Building and repair of any siding accordingly. Any modification to relocate the pipes for the Sprinkler System to the interior of the subject building. Remove the exterior chase slash soffit on the North Elevation and repair the siding accordingly. Modification three remove portions of all interior walls at the ground floor and fourth floor that currently block existing window openings and modification. Four modify the newly proposed add ten foot tall, solid steel gate slash fence to be consistent with the previously approved 75 trans apparent, six foot tall painted metal gate slash fence staff would also like to note that upon additional review and after publication of the case report, it appears that the roof of the subject building was raised without the benefit of a certificate of appropriate notice or permit based on images of the building, the Upper Corners of the upper bay windows used to be flush with the gable roof line, but now there appears to be a gap between the upper bay windows and the roof line, indicating that the roof may have been raised during construction in order to remedy this, the Department Requests a condition of approval be added to allow the department to take corrective action regarding the roof. We welcome any direction the commission can provide. I also have hard copies of the originally approved plans from 2019 and images of the building. If commission needs to date Department Staff has received correspondence from two members of the public regarding the project. The first was a general inquiry about the project, neither in support nor opposition to the project. The second indicated support for the project, as proposed by the project sponsor. The Department Finds that the project with modifications, will retain and preserve the historic character of the building and will not result in the removal of historic fabric staff recommends that the commission approve the proposed project with modifications and adopt the attached draft motion to that effect as the project with modifications meets the provisions of article ten of the planning code regarding major alteration to a contributing resource in the landmark District Court and the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. Further the project with modifications is in compliance with all of the provisions of the planning code, including appendix l of article ten. This concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. Kelly wong of enforcement staff is also here to answer any questions regarding the enforcement case in history. I will now turn it over to the project sponsor for a presentation. Thank you. Project sponsor. You have five minutes. Okay all right. Good. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon , president matsuda. Members of the commission. An. Im tom tunney of reuben juniors and rose Land Use Council for the project sponsor with me is our architect, Vincent Gonzaga and the other members of our project team are here and available for any questions that you may have. The current team was brought on board by the Property Owner over a year ago to replace the prior team when he learned of the work that the team had done without required review. The owner is committed to bringing this property into full compliance with every applicable code and restored to its original grandeur and has spent years and spent spared no cost in doing so. And neighbors have been overwhelmingly supportive. The current team has been open and transparent with staff, with site visits, property photos, revised drawings and anything requested by staff. Some items before you were things the team discovered on its own and brought to staffs attention, such as the jacuzzi on the roof and the fourth floor half moon window, the infill of which, as staff has requested, were willing to remove where we stand now is your consideration of certain exterior utilities, which, as you might imagine, presents some unique challenges for a four unit 145 year old apartment building. Weve done our best to reconfigure these utilities to minimize any impact on the Historic Resource. All of the items under review are located on secondary facades. And as stated, this building is not individually significant as a resource, but rather as a contributor to the district. Such some of the utilities, such as the electrical meters, present a unique challenge because pga requires access from the exterior. They were installed to meet pga as required tenants, and its no secret how difficult it is to get pga to make even minor changes to its requirements. Another unique challenge here is dealing with the ongoing crime and vandalism in the neighborhood. And lastly, our desire to accommodate noise and privacy impacts on neighbors. All of which brings us to what we have before you today. These initial photos show you where weve come with this property. The photos of the original building are from only six years ago, looking more closely, you can see where we started with the utilities on this building. Weve removed a tremendous amount of utility equipment, the upper floors of both the south and the north sides today, they are completely open staff supports the front facade with no changes requested, save for the question about the area above the bays which we can discuss looking next at the North Elevation, the elevation above is existing and below is what weve proposed. You can see the reduction in scope a few items remain that weve tried to address as best we can. We return the electrical conduit lines 90 degrees and paint the cylinder to match the siding. The soffit housing the fire line matches the siding and color of the building and would be pushed back 14ft from the front building wall where 15ft is a typical setback required for resources and thats typically for horizontal and vertical additions where this is only a minor bump out, we can significantly reduce the size of the electrical meters. Weve relocated the condensers to the rear of the south side of the building, which is the least visible location, while also having the least impact on neighbors and noise to the rear and the north and to the rear yard usable open space of the building itself. The condensers need to be outside for ventilation requirements, as weve tried to find ways to move this equipment to the inside. But it all presented different challenges, making it very difficult, if not impossible. We submit this is a significant improvement on the existing condition and not an impact on the resource and consistent with the secretary of the interior standards. The remaining proposals are security related. The interior coverings on the ground floor windows protect privacy and discourage potential crime. The coverings are no different than shades or blinds and again, these are secondary facades and this building is a contributor to not individually significant the ten foot gate on the north side is proposed for security reasons. Were happy to make it more transparent as staff has recommended. And on the other hand, having it remain solid, obscure lowers the visibility of the utilities. Wed appreciate the commissions input on on the gate and your preference. With that, ill conclude and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. If youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no members of the public in the chambers, please come forward if you want us make Public Comment. Please come forward. Good afternoon. My name is tim wright. I live in 732 tennessee street, which is a victorian property right next to 740. And im here to represent myself and also my family, specifically my better half janie, my wife alex, our eight year old son, and frances, my four year old daughter, my father is an Historic Buildings architect and most of his career was spent working on old houses in ireland owned by the national trust. So ive been immersed whether i like it or not, in Historic Buildings preserved in work. We live in the historic neighborhood of dogpatch, which is a great opportunity to live in a beautiful victorian house in a neighborhood full of other similar period buildings and our property. Although its been seismically upgraded, the facade has been kept entirely, i think period. And we like to think that were a good custodians of this victorian, that we live in initially, when we learned about the work that was going to be done at 740, you know, we were happy because the property had fallen into a state of fairly significant disrepair during the prior ownership and also because we knew we were in a Historic Building district, we were confident, given the importance that you all place on preserving the historic fabric, the work would be done appropriately and the end result would be beautiful. And we care about beautiful objects, of course, just like everyone else. Unfortunately things havent really worked out that way for us. I wouldnt want to lay the blame at the feet of the existing team because i know theres been turnover in the team, but just from the beginning of the project theres been a consistent pattern of things not being done the way they were supposed to get done and the way that we were told they were going to get done. The first example of this was immediately the contractor started building a 15 foot hole underneath the building that has the basement. And its obviously not historically appropriate, but its hidden. We were concerned because we were worried about our foundations being undermined and we were not consulted. And then theres just been more and more of this as time has gone on over the last five years, as weve been living in this construction site and weve been just consistently, its worth it. Well stick with it. The end result is going to be good. Well just let this happen. But now with things where they are at the end of the project, we feel like we have to speak up. So we have some concerns about not just the current state, but also whats being proposed to remedy it. Again, i know this wasnt the work of the existing team and i know they are making efforts to improve situation. I do appreciate that. Specifically, though. So the mechanicals, i dont know if you all have seen pictures of them, but theres a whole bunch of machinery and meters and stuff thats been laid down in the passage between our properties as this was done entirely without our consent, there was no consultation or consent by us, let alone the Planning Department, sir. But that is your time. May i just wrap up one more . One more sentence. So we think they should be placed elsewhere, either on their roof or inside the building. Right now they make so much noise. Our son cant sleep when they run a second. The fence and the gate, an opaque fence is unacceptable because it would obscure the passage away, which is a Security Risk for us, not an improvement. We want the police to be able to have a line of sight down the passageway between our two buildings in case someone tries to get into one of our side windows. So for these reasons, in addition to the fact that works not been done to plan and its historically inappropriate, were concerned and we cant really support the plans in their current proposed state. Thank you for hearing me out. Okay um, seeing no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward, lets go to our remote caller. Oh, good. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im jonathan perlman. I am speaking today and i assume you got my email yesterday to talk about some of the onerous conditions that are or modifications that are being asked for on this project. I think some of them like the issues of the fences and the gates are appropriate. I dont know that 75 is appropriate. It seems kind of overkill all and far too onerous because if you look around dogpatch most side alleys as well as all over San Francisco have gates or solid gates or much denser gates. People put their garbage cans back there. Its a very common thing. So while they they may not be solid. It would be good to review this, to do something much denser than the 75 open. Also, im unclear as to why the department asked for the chain link fence to be retained. Perhaps the same fence on the north and south alleys would be appropriate it. So thats something that could be reviewed with staff in terms of relocating all of the mechanical equipment inside, that seems extremely onerous because of the conditions that mr. Tunney mentioned about the pga. It is virtually impossible to get pga off the dime and to change their minds about things. The Fire Department has similar requirements which are very, very difficult to modify and as mentioned, hvac condensers do you have to be exterior to the building . They cannot be interior to the building. And as currently seen, theyre located well to the back of the south side, very far back from the street. I dont think any of the modifications that are being requested change the fact that the building does meet the secretary of interior standards with the modifications or without. And if it meets it without the modifications, then theres no particular preservation reason why why it would be required to move, you know, at substantial cost to the owner. The equipment and even the windows. The issue with the partitions behind the ground floor windows, that is no different. There is no change from the outside, no one knows one way or another because those windows could easily be painted on the inside or have a shade permanently pulled down on the inside from the outside, they meet the standard. They they havent been changed. They have the same trim. They are glass. S so therefore youre again removing a partition on the inside. Does seems, you know, beyond the scope of what would be required under the secretary of interior standards. So i just want to support that. Basically the proposed project. Thank you, mr. Perlman does meet the standards and thank you very much for your consideration. Okay last call for Public Comment on this. If youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners Public Comment is closed and this matter is now before you. Thank you, commissioner foley. So im im pretty frustrated. Ive actually renovated a historic structure. Ive renovated a historic structure with neighbors that i actually coordinated with and had good relationships with. I actually had to coordinate with pga on some pretty tricky things, and i was able to do that. I do appreciate the project sponsor renovating this building. I really do. And i know its really hard to renovate buildings, but that doesnt mean you just get to break all the rules. And the truth of the matter is, when you looked at the previous project sponsor, they worked with the neighbors. They worked with staff and staff , and the neighbors got everything done. No problem. Easy peasy. So now were sitting here with enforcement having to be here, planning, have to be here, have to relook at the whole project out and blaming your other the Previous Team and closing your eyes is really not a great excuse. So im going to leave all the technical things to the to the other people on this commission. But personally, i think its a tragedy. Fauci that you havent worked with your neighbors. I think a four in an eight year old child need quiet. And i think they need safety. I think you have to be a good neighbor. Thank you very much. Thank you, commissioner warren. Ill also be interested in any other commissioners comments on this. You know, its a struggle. I know being an architect, i always trying to coordinate my mechanical equipment and routing things and seeing what they go. But it it is part of the problem solving that one has to do in order to get something done. And i almost see this garage as a place where some of this equipment could go. You might lose a parking space in there and as far as the condensers go, you know, if there was roof work done, if theres a difference in the roof, then we ought to look at whether we can put these condensers on the roof or other equipment on the roof so that we have the respect that we need between the properties as well as although on the street face, one would think that that street face is the most important part, which it is the view to the side is you know, the thing that youre going to notice that changes the character of what youre looking at, right . So when youre looking at a historic property, if you see a conduit running up the building on one side and a big junction box or a mechanical equipment, there, it is going to change your perspective on the character of that historic property. So i think its important to really think about how to do that. And as far as trend trends and transparency of the gates, i, i can see both argument on transparency. My initial my initial reaction was that the gates could follow the line of the string course thats at the bottom of the building and then across and be solid and be with siding, but understanding the neighbors concern. I think there needs to be some creativity in that. And also, i know pga is difficult to coordinate with, but we have to kind of think a little bit more about this as it is, the gates are awkward and they do detract from the historical appearance of the building, as does the equipment. Im not sure what im looking at with the one rendering with the short gate and then behind it something taller. Is that a screen or is it the equipment . So id like to ask that question at the sponsor or the architect would like to those are two gates on the north side. Theres a theres a front first gate thats six feet high. And then the gate behind it is the ten foot gate that was referenced by staff. Thats the one that it staff is asking for more transparent. Ac with. So its like a double gate basically. Yes, it is doing and is there a reason for that versus having one gate or one . The ten foot gate is in a location. We have tried to work with the neighbor on this case and i thought. Had made every effort to communicate that that location was worked out with the neighbor because it prevents somebody from using the neighbors stairs to get up over a gate. So its too high. You cant use the stairs to get over and then back into the backyards. What if it were some sort of shed structure that was solid on one side but open on the other side so that pga could get in and also spaced away from the other buildings. So were not having issues of like crossover. What if it was something that looked architectural like a shed. Structure on one side and then open on the other side where pga could get in . So im trying to think of what that could work, what we need to move the meters back. I believe. That thats a nice solution because we could it sounds like we could move the meters back. Theyd be in that we were concerned that that a additional structure like that presented the same impact, but it would solve it would solve it would be it would solve two problems. Yeah i mean i think you have to look at clearances from the other building as well. Architecturally and code wise. Yeah. But but i, i feel like there could be a little bit more study with that. And then i dont know if this is something that we could bring to Architectural Review Committee and then come back. Back. Yeah so that they have some feedback from staff and also thatd be helpful. I think thatd be great. I think well, i think we have other comments and maybe we can discuss that after all the comments and questions are addressed. As far as the noise for the neighbor, that was the purpose of moving the condensers to the other side. Thats thats the loud equipment, if there is any. So it would be on the other side of the building. Now so we were hoping that addressed that concern. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner wright. Yeah, im actually im curious if staff. Has any comments or would like to address any of the comments thus far from the project sponsor or from the callers and i also would like some clarity from staff about it seems like there was a recommendation to do to correct this work, but then it sounded like maybe theres a recommendation to accept the proposed project with modify locations and not really totally clear on where the staff stands on those. Gigi gunther planning staff i think to address your last question, the way that we wrote the executive summary and the draft motion, the executive summary, we presented the project as a whole and as a whole includes what the project sponsor proposes, including adding the new ten foot tall fence, the condensers legalizing mechanical equipment, and then construction of that chase and soffit. So we wrote the motion, though as the project with modifications as recommended by staff. So the draft motion would be aligned with staffs recommendations and modifications. But the executive summary presents a holistic picture and kind of breaks down what scopes staff wants to modify versus what the sponsor is proposing. Okay. So the staffs recommendations are not. 100 at the project. Sponsors proposed project. Thats correct. Thank you. Im also happy to answer any questions regarding scopes of work and compliance with the guidelines as set out by the secretary of the interior for rehabilitation. Did you have a question for staff about the comments that were. Yeah. Do you have any response to any of the of the Public Comments or to any of the project sponsors comments thus far . Yeah i think the first document id like to highlight is the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitating Historic Buildings. So not only do they lay out the ten standards that we analyze in the draft motion, but theres also numerous pages regarding guidelines for how to restore various aspects of Historic Building. And so i think ill highlight a couple of those. So on pages 102 through 109 of the guidelines set out by the secretary of the interior, they talk about windows and what is not recommended for windows is two of the things that are not recommended for windows when rehabilitating Historic Buildings include obscuring the historic window trim with metal or other material and removing character defining windows to conceal mechanical equipment, or to provide privacy for a new use of the building by blocking up the opening. And there are alternate lives to just creating a solid partition such as blinds. I know that was discussed that staff would be fine with blinds in windows. They do have specific guidance as well for mechanical equipment and what is not recommended for mechanical equipment on pages 125 through 127. One of the things they do not recommend is leaving hvac ductwork exposed in most finished spaces or installing soffits in a location that will negatively impact the historic character of the interior exterior of the building. And then another thing they do not recommend is placing air conditioning compressors where there are highly visible and negatively impact the historic character of the building or the setting of the building. Lastly they also go into what is not recommend needed for required code work or life safety work. And one of the things they do not recommend and outline on pages 69 through 71 is altering damaging or destroying character defining exterior features or interior spaces feature finishes or features of the site and setting while making modifications to a building, its site or setting to comply with Life Safety Code required. Its you know, that is why we do have a state Historic Building code. And then another thing they do not recommend is covering character defining wood features with fire retardant sheathing, possibly those interior partitions which would result in altering their appearance again for the windows. Instead, they recommend installing sensitively designed Fire Suppression systems. So historic features are preserved so you can find a lot more in the secretarys guideline is not just, you know, general compliance with the standards. Yeah. Thank you. Was that it or. I, i, i have one more question. But for the project sponsor, um, i, im not clear on, on kind of the, the timeline of interventions, but it seems like the whole building was gutted and, and remodeled in totality. So its, its surprising to me that so much mechanical equipment ended up on the outside of the building. Do you have any reason for that . Well it varies for the different pieces of equipment. But the gas or electrical meters, for example, are on the exterior. Thats for because pga asks for them there and to provide access. Yes. That that fire line, which the soffit houses is obstruct erected or or the interior construction would be difficult because of the moment frames on that side of the building. The contractor can talk a little bit more articulately about that. But that made the flow of the line easier. We were able to push it back. So from the front of the building and then how it in that soffit, which we were submitting was consist with those, with those guidelines. And the secretary of the interior standards where its not detracting from the character of the building much like an addition might, as long as it was set back from the front of the building. But but thats primarily for fire flow reasons that it was pushed out and then the condensers can be moved back where theyre less visible. The way the secretary of the interior standards asked x. And i think thats the majority of the equipment at issue. To okay, thank you. Im i have to say personally, im not a fan of the concealed fire sprinkler on along the north side. Even the pushed back version. I think there are lots of applicants that successfully implement it. Mechanical upgrades to buildings without these issues. Thank thank you, commissioner foley. Yeah, i mean. Ive ive renovated a very Historic Building. It was over 100 years old. It was vacant for 30 years. I understand how difficult it is. And i applaud the project sponsor for taking a project like this on. I do not applaud the project sponsor for trying to cut corners and do things that arent within the code and dont work with the staff and the neighbor to get the right building built. And when i hear someone say that the moment frame was in the way and we had to put a soffit on the outside of the wall for a fire sprinkler, it makes me want to blow my head off. So full disclosure, im really upset because i feel like the project sponsor. Actually, i have one question. Did the project sponsor raise the roof. We dont think so. Were not sure how that discrepancy came about. We just learned of it ourselves this morning. We had presented these photos to staff weeks ago. I just hadnt seen that it like the bays were lowered and when they were reconstructed. But we dont know at this point. So who managed the project . This was a prior team. All this had been done by the time this this team was hired. But didnt the project sponsor hire the team, pay for the team . Look at the change orders. Look at the drawings, have an architect. All those all those things i presume. So a lot of this was happening during covid, so i know not to make that an excuse, but i think communication often was a problem and people were kind of doing things by videoconference or or electronic drawings. But i dont we had not even noticed that that that distance and i wanted to provide some clarification as to how it seems like theres some kind of misunderstanding about the project sponsors throwing up their hand. To be frank, the project. Just introduce yourself. Sorry, sorry. Julie kim the project sponsor who now owns the building as a sole owner, previously had a partner and she was in charge of the prior architect. The prior general contractor, and this was her project and unfortunately they split during covid. And so now the information portion related to this is not available to us. And thats really all i can say about that. Matt so you dont have the drawings . I would not have those drawings, no, no. But you had an architect of record that has drawings that were submitted to. I dont even know there wasnt an architect of record. It was a general contractor. I understand it. And an interior designer. Yeah can i might i might ask if kelly wong is our lead enforcement plant. Lead for our Enforcement Team and has also been doing quite a bit of work on this site. So she might be able to provide some insight in terms of the project history. So that would be lovely. Thank you very much. It might be helpful for kelly to just walk through the timeline in terms of when we became aware of the enforcement matter and basically her observation to date. Just to note, kelly, is also was formerly and still is our preservation enforcement officer right. I mean, if you could particularly focus as ms. Wong on i really appreciated the executive summary and the clarity of the chronology from page. On page six, the Planning Department enforcement case history. I think that gives the commission an a good overview of what has been going on since march 18th, 2019, and that this project, many of the modifications that are being recommended today are modifications because there were no they were done without permit. Right. That is correct. We did not receive. So again, kelly wong, Code Enforcement manager at the Planning Department, thank you, president masuda and fellow commissioners. So all of the work at the building exterior that were reviewing today were not reviewed by the Planning Department in a permit application, nor was it reviewed under a certificate of appropriateness. So when i conducted my final inspection, hoping that work would have been completed per the c a that was approved, we found this additional scope of work and only did we discover the possible raising of the roof or some sort of modification at the bay and the roof. Looking at the photos that were provided in the letter from mr. Pearlman. Thank you. Do you . Commissioner negus warren, did you want to ask ms. Wong specific questions . Commissioner just to provide a little more color on, on what ms. Wong is basically saying, we had a project that was approved. Obviously things were not built according to what that project was and stated, this is when enforcement action subsequently happened. So this latest iteration of the project that gretel has been working on has basically been to correct and basically legalize the work. And just to give some color into our enforcement program, we are generally we generally work with our sponsors right . We want to try and get work, legalize. And we are we try not to be punitive. And so where we can make adjustments or refinements and a project to kind of bring it into compliance with our guidelines. We do. And thats the recommendations that we do when sometimes we cant come to agreement or alignment on what those guidelines or recommendations were. Thats where we specify, for example, conditions of approval. So to kind of push a project into compliance with our guidelines in this case for a landmark property and one that has gone through a kind of substantial renovation, you know, as as you can see from the before and the after. And also knowing that, you know, the commission previously approved a prior project on the site, you know, its even more challenging as we kind of try and map out the kind of future of whats happening. And so, you know, in this particular instance, were happy that the sponsor has been working with us to date. This is actually a good thing, quite honestly. It actually makes things a little easier and but we understand that the commissioners have a lot of concerns about the direction that the project is going and that there might be some kind of baseline information that we might need to get and or consider as part of the record just to make sure that everything is Crystal Clear in terms of where it was, what was approved, and the kind of what we need to do moving forward. So and just. Mr. Zucker this this chronology that or the case history thats documented here shows that there were two suspension request, is that correct . Thats correct. And then that the hpc did here and did approve a motion. But were talking about things that never came before us, right . Theres these things that you are now listing now. I am troubled by this. I dont know if the other commissioners are troubled, but there doesnt seem to be a pattern of wanting to follow the rules here. And im just wondering about what kind of assurances we have to make sure that rules are going to be followed. I mean, these this is a very important structure. Its in a its in a very important district. Weve heard from a member of the public that, you know, there there are serious concerns about wanting to really preserve a historic structure. So and im just concerned about how we should think about this project moving forward. And youve youve given us a good overview about your site visit. What you saw. You went back another suspension request was issued and all the things that happened after that. I just leave it to the commission to really understand what has gone on with this. The modifications that staff is proposing, modification one, two and three all focus on things that were done without permit. Can i ask a question . Yes mr. Craig. Could this go back to architectural review . Yeah, i think we can certainly continue the item out and then schedule an Architectural Review Committee in the interim. In full disclosure commissioners, you also need to elect a new Architectural Review Committee since two of the former members are no longer there or no longer on the commission. So you know, and that way maybe we give a little bit more time to kind of provide insight and shape the project. I would also say maybe within that time frame we can conduct some additional inspections with the project team to ensure that we kind of maybe field verify some of the existing conditions and also to examine all parts of the building. Ms. Wong do you think thats appropriate . Yeah yes. And ms. Wong do you have any recommendations or comments for us to consider . I think the only other additional sort of enforcement process that we typically do is the final special inspection in the Building Permit application process. So prior to sign off on this new permit, we would actually do a final inspection to ensure that the work that was undertaken is in accordance to all of plannings approvals. But on november 2011, 2022, it says that dp inspector had already approved and that was the prior permit. Yes. Which is in accordance to the cfa, the prior cfa. So this new to cfa that youre reviewing would then be vested under a new Building Permit application. And then i would do that final inspection. In addition to any sort of period or monthly building inspection. Yeah. And i think thats actually the way that we can likely address some of the commissions concerns about this. You know, we it has happened, albeit a little bit rarely in the past that we do more regular inspections. You know, our Enforcement Team, while small, while they are very mighty, theyre very used to going out on on, on, on job sites and making sure that the work is kind of on track with the way it should be. So, you know, some of this is also in making sure that the sponsor outlines a firm schedule for us in terms of like when work is occurring. So that way we can also get a sense of when we need to come out according to certain scopes that are happening on the site. And i think itd be great if the project sponsor worked with the neighbor in a better way. Commissioner warren yeah. And so if this project goes to ask, i mean, i would like if im on the commission or the Architectural Review Committee as well to see to have the facades be studied to the extreme. Like i want to see what it would take to get everything inside. What it would take to put condensers on the roof. It doesnt mean that we are going to go that direction, but i need to see what it takes to do that in order to see the mediums of that. Because because as commissioner wright said, this building was gutted and so we need to make an effort to understand and how this can be internalized. And you know, away from the site and also comply with the standards and address the neighbors concerns. I the conduit it the equipment, the condensers, the ducting. All of that i would like to see a full force understanding of the code and the Historical Building code to see if we can minimize some of this equipment, whether we need some of this equipment. As we know in the Historical Building code, it has, you know, a allotments and all alternatives to mechanical equipment. So we want to look at those very closely and really see if we need this so that were not having to maybe that will save you some energy and take take away some of this equipment. So yeah, please do that due diligence. Look at it very closely, try to get, you know, some concealer, but mostly get it inside, get it on the roof and, you know, i think it will alleviate a lot of concerns. We could you know, its a tough battle when were seeing so much. And then as far as the gates go, they do need to look a little bit more architectural. They look a little utilitarian and not to do, you know, consistent with the neighborhood and the adjacent buildings. So and i know youre dealing with a chain link fence on the other side, but i appreciate all of that. Thank you, commissioner wright. Yeah, i had a follow up question. I think when the question was was mentioned about whether or not the roof was raised and there was a comment about reconstruction of the base. So does anyone know if the base were completely removed and rebuilt . Is that what i was hearing . I i think thats the part of the thats thats what were going to try to figure out in this more more extensive investigation. That would be part of what i think particularly miss wongs kind of more fine grained investigation. Can reveal. You know, i think itd be helpful to make sure that the sponsor avails themselves of both work on the exterior as well as full access to the interior to make sure that like we can, you know, see in person if the bays were reconstructed. You know, we do know that the windows are original. Its unclear if the bays were reduced in size. And i know the older version of this had a pent roof on the bays. So there so that has impacted it a little bit. So i dont know if between removing the cornice and the pent that reduced the size of the bay and then increased that gap. But some of this will be revealed if, you know, as we can kind of open up the building a little bit and verify, yeah, i mean, its pretty obvious that something happened in the these photos. Thank you. Commissioner foley. Yeah, i just want to mention one thing, too. The project sponsor. This is not meant to be punitive at all. And i do appreciate that youre trying to bring this building back. And i really do appreciate that. And i appreciate that you had a partner that didnt work out well. Ive had that as well. So this has not been to be punitive at all. But we actually have to be organized around this. And again, id recommend to work with your neighbor because it seems like your previous partner was was not a good neighbor. So id recommend that and kind of start a new leaf. So were were motivated to work with you and have this happen and planning staff is motivated. But for me personally, theres a lot happening here and i just think we need to take a step back. So i appreciate you being here. So i am assuming that we are we have a motion to not support the c of a and that we are going to have this project come back to us, particularly the arc, and have it reviewed again and studied again. So i would before we do that, we need to appoint a the architectural you would need to appoint the Architectural Review Committee. And can we do that without it being noticed . We cannot know. They can. If we just go back to commission, matters could we . City attorney , deputy City Attorney peter lynch i believe youd have to have agendized the appointment of an Architectural Review Committee members before you can take that action. Okay, but but at this time, we can make a motion to not go forward with the i would i would recommend making a motion to continue this matter out to a date specific for enough time for you to appoint an Architectural Review Committee and have it heard before them and then have it come back to you. So can we put it on our next meetings agenda to appoint the arc and then the subsequent meeting after that to have this come back to us, to the arc. To the arc. Im sorry. Yes yes. Just knowing how much work it kind of takes to get the i think what i heard clearly today is that we want a better drawing package that documents the projects history. So basically, what the original condition was, what the approved condition was, was what the legalized condition was. And then what the proposed condition is planning to be and some assurances. Yeah. So part of that, too, would also be a construction schedule from the project sponsor team to outline what and when things are occurring on your site. Obviously you have to work closely with your contractor on all of that. We do need to review it with the arc as well. So honestly, i probably would give us another like two months to three months to kind of get all of this together, because then we need to make sure that we revise the case from material accordingly as well as our our work. And i dont know. Ms. Wong do you think that sounds like enough time for you to do your work. Kelly wong planning Department Staff. Yes. Yeah i think two, three months because as of, you know, some people being out of the office and being able to be ready to do the Site Investigation and also to review drawings to make sure that they are accurate and represent whats actually as built on site. Thank you. So i might propose november 15th then as a date for us to come back, which is about two months from now and to on november 15th. Well to come back here or to actually hold the no and in between that time we would do ask so and we can calendar that separately. It may be november 1st for the arc and november 15th to for the continuance or okay im oh gigi gunther planning staff can you please summarize us just i think what types of plans and photos you would like to see at hrc to provide you enough information beyond what was in the plans today and the plans today. We do show the plans as approved under motion 041 for the as built and then the proposed. So i just want to clarify, we really know what we want beyond that. In preparation for arc. Thank you. Okay commissioner nageswaran, did you want to so. To the front facade, obviously for what commissioner wright was asking for in terms of the bay windows and the roofline and the north and south elevations, probably primarily. Primarily the North Elevation, but i think the exterior facades are the primary thing we want to understand and because the interior is gutted and redone and, you know, internally using the equipped moment is really on the sponsor side, we dont necessarily need to see where they put the equipment unless its on the roof or outside. And so i think the facades and the roof roof plan are the primary things and the partitions as the interior walls or the window openings. This is the modification three and the recommendation from staff definitely to focus in on the Modification Options that were proposed today, including the roof. And there was oh, sorry, there was a lot of movement of windows. Obviously so we probably want your recommendation motion for how to deal with the windows because some moved and some were infilled. And so some recommendation for that. But i think the equipment and the gates are a big part of what were looking at. Does that give you enough information . Ms. Gunther. Yes, thats plenty of information. I think it was for the benefit of myself and the sponsor. So i appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you so, commissioners, we still need a motion to continue. We need a motion to continue motion to continue to november 15th. And the arc for november 1st second. Very good commissioners on that motion to continue this matter to november 15th with direction to the sponsor on that motion. Commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner wright. Yes. Commissioner foley i. Commissioner warren. Yes and commissioner. President matsuda yes. Commissioners. A motion passes unanimously 5 to 0, placing us on item eight for case number 2022 hyphen 008117 mta for the property at 335 powell street. This is a request for a permit to alter. Thank you, commissioner. Secretary good afternoon, commissioners. Ill give them a minute to leave. The last item on your agenda is for a permit to alter for two proposed pergolas at the visible light wells of the Saint Francis hotel. The 13 story italian Renaissance Hotel was built in 1904. The south wings rebuilt in 1907 after the great earthquake and fire and expanded in 1931 with a north wing all by significant bay area Architectural Firm faville. The proposal is for two steel framed pergolas at the second floor balconies or light wells adjacent to powell street. They will be a total of 11in as to not exceed the ornate stringcourse above the second floor door and will be recessed five feet from the historic ornamental railing and eight feet from the powell street front Property Line. A associated downcast lighting and heaters will be finished in a dark, low gloss paint and the project will not remove any character defining features. The proposal staff finds is appropriate and consistent with the purposes of article 11 and meets the secretary of the interior standards. Given in the depth of these large light wells. Approximately 54ft by 35ft, and extending 11 stories in height. The Department Finds that that although these pergolas will be visible throughout multiple vantages of union square, that they really dont diminish or take away from the Historic Resource. So staff recommends approval and separate from our analysis is generally the sponsor and the hotel feel that this project is essential and the department is generally in support of any downtown Recovery Efforts and today we have a Lucinda Lawrence and Steven Steven from stanton architecture here to field any questions if you have them. And i, i will put it back in your court. Is there is there a sponsor presentation . There is no sponsor presentation. They just are here for any questions. Okay. Very good. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no request to speak, Public Comment is closed in this matter is now before you commissioners. Commissioner foley so i went down there on saturday. I think so i shopped at macys, which was kind of a disaster. But then i looked at the building and i think this is a really great and i think that the project sponsor wants to spend money and kind of activate things. So im really happy youre here and i hope we can get this done. Thank you, commissioner warren so i wanted to understand and whether this is pergola can be turned so that we just see one beam and not all the beams facing the street that we just see one line and the posts and then if the railing behind can match the railing in the front in the pattern, i see that theyre kind of off pattern. And i think part of that is being on that terrace, youre going to see the Historical Perspective of that area and so having the misalignment of the railing is going to be awkward and so lets see what else. And then as far as conditions of approval, i didnt see any specifics, but i thought maybe material paint, color and attachments that might be attached to the facade on the sides, maybe at the railing, a where its abutting and also waterproofing details in case it affects its the stonework on the edges as. So i just want to summarize your comments. So currently the project as proposed, has a cross beam pattern. So it would your preference is to see just one and then in regards to the railings, i do want to remind the commission on that administrative minor permit to alter was approved back in february. So the current railing location, setback and design was previously approved. But ill let the sponsor speak to if they are open to making those minor adjustments as. Hi, im steve allen with stanton architecture. Yeah, even though its already approved and the railing has not been constructed, wed be perfectly fine. Changing the metering of the railing. It is a steel, very thin railing to match the rest and set back from the stone railing. So i think from anywhere in union square, you wont actually be able to see it. I can see from the experience on the inside youre going to experience it from the space itself, though. And so youre going to see it when youre on the deck looking at the building. Surround you, which is also a Historical Perspective. Yeah, so were fine. Taking a look and changing the metering, im not familiar with exactly where everything lands with respect to the other railing, but thats i dont think that would be an issue as far as the connections to the points of the building, we have no connections to the building except through the floor. Theres the four posts that hit there are electrical is also running up through the posts we have lighting and electric heaters that are within the plane of the trellis, so things arent dangling down. It still stays very light. So theres no other no other penetrations in the floor material, which is also approved in the previous minor permit to alter is a pedestal paver. So even that is just, you know, barely touching. If anything, the do you have waterproofing coming up along on the stonework or below. So the its mostly the existing what happens now its a single ply roofing in places that might be repaired but were not going any higher than it is now. Are you open to turning the frame so that we only see one . I think we could we did take a look at that. We looked at it in both directions and we felt that it was a lot heavier when we turned it. And it was a lot lighter and you could see through it more when the pickets were facing toward union square. Youre talking about the beams. So im talking about the pergola. So if you turn the pergola and you see just one beam rather than 15 beams or whatever it is going, yeah. So looking at the 15, we felt that you could see through it more and turning them other way. It sort of became more of a black mask because youre seeing them, you know, sort of continue stacking up. And it was harder to see through them. So wed be happy to show you that option. It wouldnt be too hard for us to do a quick rendering and modify that a little bit to see what you thought. But when we looked at it, we preferred the current method because we thought i would have liked to have seen that alternative. But yeah, yeah, i appreciate that. How do we rich if i want to see that particular option, how do we do that with this . Can we approve it . And then we cant really approve it until we see the other option, right . Yeah i would probably say youd probably want to continue it and then basically review the other options because we it would be hard to craft a condition that thats based on that. Usually you want to be pretty exacting about is this something that they can bring at the next meeting or could it be a condition that it gains approval later or well, if you if you come on the next meeting, then in between, if you could share with me images and then we could just make a decision on the next meeting. Okay, we can do that. Yeah so that would be my recommendation. I mean, my perspective is, is union square. So i just want to. Yeah, we understand, right . Thank you, commissioner. Right yeah. Um i was. Im feeling like the, the like the visibility of this is too great for kind of the significant building, the primary facade of the significant building on a significant public space in San Francisco. So im all for upgrades and contemporary intervention options. To make spaces useful. But im curious if, you know why the project sponsor feels like this is an essential project for their for their operation or function in. But right now, just based on the packet that the it just feels like the height i dont know if the height could come down or the push the setback could be greater. I think that the use of this space, these spaces are great and that was already reviewed previous lee you know to make these outdoor spaces occupy viable and well used the views would be great facing the square but but those those are some some questions that i have in review of the package. Steve allen with stanton again current use of the spaces on the interior. A lot of those are, you know, there is sort of one Assembly Space in that sort of middle bay of the building, sort of cut up offices right now, sort of under utilized for what that space is and what it could be on interior, which again is part of the other permit we are sort of increasing the size of that space, taking out all offices, making that a sort of a central meeting room, Assembly Space, which will then feed into to both of the balconies on both sides and again on the south meeting or south of the south balcony is another meeting room. So really being able to use all those Spaces Together for a much better event space rather than underutilized, a few offices and storage right now. Yeah, i guess i was i was referring to the, the balconies being the as being great spaces to use. I dont have any questions about the interior ajc spaces, but really , whats so essential about the pergola to the function of an and use of these balconies in in in concert with the proposed plans and use for the interior adjacent spaces. It feels to me like the adverse effect is there visually we for something that might really not be that essential to the success of this project. The east facade of the west and Saint Francis doesnt get a lot of direct sun very long into the day and these deep these deep spaces. I work just across the street from this and its i think very in the Early Morning only is are these areas fully flushed with sun. So otherwise theyre pretty well shadowed all day long. So i dont know what function the pergola is providing to you allow. For kind of the invigorate mission and update use of this space as youre describing it. It is clear in your description that youre looking at attached wing lighting and electrical to the trellises, but but aside from that, i, i guess im, im not sure that theyre really needed. Yeah. Commissioner im happy to weigh in. Just to give you an idea of where the department was going on this, because obviously it is a fairly new intervention on a very Historic Hotel and i think we also understood that it was going to be visible like it was something you know, in our understanding the sponsor was really looking for something that could kind of establish a place or establish a new space within the hotel. And it really was like a placemaking type of feature. And also to kind of highlight, you know, a new aspect of the hotel, all as related to union square in particular, the intervention obviously is very modern in its look and we actually encouraged that quite a bit to make sure that you could understand and a clear differentiation between the old and the new. We also pushed them quite a bit to keep it thinner in profile. So that way then the sightlines on it would would disappear as much as we could. You know, i think our larger recognition is that union square needs a lot of help. Its what im sorry. It needs a lot of help. Right. Like its been a big focus of the department right now towards trying to do whatever we can do as the city to help reinvigorate union square. And obviously, the hotel is one of the kind of anchor points of union square itself, knowing that the hotel, given how covid has impacted kind of their larger business and all of that, was willing to invest in new spaces that could help kind of both anchor and bring the hotel a little bit into the future. We were we were supportive of that and the team was was very responsive to us accordingly. So we balanced the kind of need of the historical nature of the hotel with the kind of like artfulness of the kind of pergolas to like come with a recommendation before you that we would be able to support. So thats a little bit a little color in terms of like where the department was going and why we kind of pushed this forward that thats, thats helpful. And i do appreciate that. And like i was saying, i dont. Uh think that we cant have contemporary interventions to activate space, but those those are kind of the questions that i was thinking of on this again. Um uh, significant art facade on a significant building in a significant public space in San Francisco and on page three of the report, you know, enlisted under the issues and considerations, the first three bullet points are the visibility of the pergolas and the adequacy of provided setback and downcast lighting from the pergola. So i , i think that there are issues and considerations for me and im kind of agreeing with that. And to respond to that a little bit. The design of the pergolas , i think sort of theres dual function of, of just creating a space thats a little bit more human scale. I think the bottom of the pergolas is about ten feet out and in that space, i think creating the right balance, we didnt want it to be 14ft and too tall or too massive , so we felt that lower than that at nine feet would feel very low. It would be like a large space with a low ceiling. We dont want to create that as well. As we mentioned also, you know, theres not too much sunlight there. San francisco, we love roof decks on every project. Now and except theyre always cold. So the other purpose is that we have lighting and we have heaters in there and you know, we dont want to build this space and have them never be used. So sort of essential to have a structure that fit in with the building. Also provide provided a level of comfort, were there other considerations for implementation of heating besides a trellis system . Um, and it is helpful. Thank you for pointing out that the bottom of the structure for the bottom of the pergola structure you said is at ten feet. Yeah, but the top is at 11 foot too. Yes um, so the ten feet is the clearance. Yes. Yeah i believe so. And then we also didnt, you know, creating sort of a lid on that didnt want to stay in the space with no lid. And you just feel like youre in a cavern with the walls that are so high. But theres no. Theres no thought or proposal. L or understand ing or hope that the these would be covered in some sort of a fabric or any kind of vegetation or theyre really meant to be the, the trellis structure that were seeing in the drawings is. Yes. Is that right . We had discussed with them if they wanted a lid and that was not desired. They you know, this is not going to be used while its raining or or that sort of thing. Okay. Thank you. Thats helpful. Thank you. Commissioner uh, commissioner warren. Um, some of those questions were answered. I wanted to know about the lighting and also know if they wanted to cover it. So thank you , commissioner foley i just. I just want to i just want to mention that i really appreciate staffs review of this and how they want to try to bring union square back and help these hotels activate the space. That hotel can actually use some activation. I mean, its tired. And i think the idea of bringing a contemporary change and activating is a really good idea. I think we have to take a look at it. But i think we also really need to work with the project sponsor and get this going. So thank you and i look forward to seeing you in two weeks. I make a motion to continue for two weeks. I think commissioner right wanted to make thank you. If this were for if there were to be more review of this and a continuance, i think that it would be helpful to there are no renderings or idea of what the downcast lighting effects would be from the pergola. It might be helpful to have renderings that also give some sense to commissioners as to what that might look like from the street. Please good afternoon, commissioners. Jonathan and Department Staff. I think this is all a very helpful discussion. I think were absolutely happy to provide all this. I just want to check with them. Our packets are due at 2 p. M. On wednesday, the week before. So i just. Do you guys think you can put this together within a week . Great. I just wanted to check on that. Thank you both. Thank you. Motion to move continuance for two weeks. Ill second that. Very good, commissioners. If theres nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter with direction to september 20th, 2023. On that motion. Commissioner vergara yes. Commissioner wright yes. Commissioner foley i. Commissioner nickerson yes. And Commission President matsuda yes. So move commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. Thank you. So that concludes our hearing for today. Thank you. Shared spaces have transformed San Franciscos streets and sidewalks. Local business communities are more resilient and our Neighborhood Centers are more vibrant and lively. Fire blocks and parking lanes can be for seating and merchandising and other community activities. Were counting on operators of shared spaces to ensure their sites are safe and accessible for all. When pair mets, firefighters and other First Responders arrive at a scene, they need clear visual access to see the building entrances, exits and storefront windows from the street. That means parklets should be transfer in the areas above inches above the sidewalk level. Its best if these areas are totally unobstructed by transparent materials may be okay. You can check with fire Department Staff to make sure your site meets visibility requirements. Emergency response crews and their equipment need to be move easily between streets, sidewalks and buildings, especially when they are using medical gurneys, ladders and other Fire Fighting tools. That means that parklet structures need a three foot wide emergency feet every 20 feet and 3 feet from marked Parking Spaces and emergency access gaps need to be open to the sky, without obstructions, like canopies, roofs, or cables and should always be clear of tables, chairs, planters and other furnishings. Emergency responders need to use ladders to reach windows and roofs to buildings and the ladders need unobstructed overhead clearance and room to be placed at a 72degree angle against the building. Clearances needed around the ladders to move equipment and people safely up and down. So not all parklets can have roofs ask canopies depending on the width of the sidewalk in your area. Please make sure that your electric cables are hung so they are out of the way and indiscernible to the structure, they can be pulled down by firefighters. Cable connections need to be powered from an outdoor reciprocal in the building facade because hard wire connections are much more difficult to disconnect quickly. These updates to the shared Spaces Program will ensure safety and accessibility for everyone, so we can all enjoy these public spaces. More information is available at sf dot gov slash shared spaces