Transcripts For SFGTV Historic Preservation Commission 31616

Open up for Public Comment and so this that there is any members of the public to speak prelim come up to the podium any Public Comment . Is item one finks for projects requirements all right. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed supervisor wiener. Id like to move we continue this itthor madam cler item two. To public works provide the public assess to the roads and trails the water shed trail supervisor wiener is the author and my understanding supervisor avalos is sick today asked this matter be continued to our april 4th meeting i wanted to check in with supervisor wiener with any remarks. No. No remarks lets go ahead and move to Public Comment. Anyone from the public wish to comment on item 2 sir, i think this is what youre interested in. If this is going to be postponed until april 4th maybe ill speak at that time. All right. Anyone from the public wish to comment on item number 2 okay Public Comment is closed. At this time thank you very much supervisor wiener. Yeah. I know that supervisor avalos requested april april 4th. Right. Ive not spoken and today i dont know if this is a possibility to do that on april 11th instead of april 4th. I dont know the answer to that question madam clerk. Ill suggest to the call of the chair. We will continue to the call of the chair and check with supervisor avalos is there a motion for that to continue to the call of the chair motion carries madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body . No madam clerk, any other business before this committee . Mshz . No. Thank you very much this meeting is n francisco Historic Preservation Commission Regular hearing for wednesday march 16, 2016. I would like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate disruption or out birches of any kind. Please silence all cell phones that may go off and when speaking to the commission please state your name for the record. I will take roll. Commission president president. Here. Commissioner high land. Yes. Commissioner hasz. Yes. Commissioner johns. Here. Commissioner matsuda. Here. We expect commissioner johnck to be absent today. First is general public and can address members of the commission on items not on the agenda and you can address the commission for up three minutes. Does any member of the public wish to make a non agenda comment. Seeing none we will close Public Comment. Thank you commissioner. They will place us under department matters. Item 1 directors announcements. Good afternoon commissioners. Tim Frye Department staff. The report is in the packets and i am happy to answer any questions should you have them. Commissioner matsuda. I just had one question about the Upcoming Event on april 6, the Mission Action plan. Youre going to be discussing supporting local businesses. Will we have anything available about legacy businesses that you could share by then . Thats a great question. I will check with the organizers of the event and if there is anything that we can include. We may be able to include maps or information from San Francisco Architectural Heritage about their program. And maybe create a list about legacy businesses. Sure. Thats a great question. If there is nothing further we can move on to item two, review of the past events at the Planning Commission and staff report and announcements. Good afternoon tim frye. No formal report for you regarding the recent events of the Planning Commission but i have a few things to share with you. One is that the Planning Department hosted a table at the San Francisco history days at the old mint last week on march 5 and six. We answered general questions regarding the departments Preservation Program and Property Information and we did have a map posted where members of the public could write down landmarks they think should be designated in the future and we compiled the list and will share during the next Quarterly Report. Second is the department began the Public Outreach portion of the neighborhood commercial store front survey effort. The survey and historic statement will be in front of you in june. On tuesday march 8 from six to 8 00 p. M. We held a Community Meeting in russian hill and well attended and after a short presentation we broke out into discussion groups at tables, a lot of positive feedback about the survey results and we are conducting three more Community Events and along with four walking tours of neighborhood commercial districts in those areas. We did have a walking tour the hyde and polk street on march 12 but canceled due to rain so were going to reschedule that later this year before the hpc renders a vote on the survey. We also had ask a planner event scheduled at a local coffee shop which we will also reschedule so members of the public can ask questions about the code or the survey. The last item i wanted to share with you is something that was published this morning that you may have heard about. It appears that supervisor campos and peskin have cosponsored legislation to add about 350,000 into the Preservation Fund for legacy businesses in advance of it becoming active in july. This money could largely if passed could largely be used to fund a staff member for the small office of Small Business. But two, provide rent subsidies for businesses that qualify as legacy businesses. According to the article it appears that the office of Small Business has about ten working applications right now. I dont believe any of those are complete yet because they havent been forwarded to our office, but i will reach out to regina and find out the status of those and certainly keep you posted about the funding and how through the board of supervisors. It appears it will go to the budget and finance committee fairly soon and that concludes my report unless you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no questions commissioners that places us on please call the next item item 3 reports and announcements. The only announcement i have is i plan to handy on behalf of the commission on the hearing of the rec and Park Commission tomorrow to speak about our comments that we made about the mothers [inaudible] seeing no other items commissioners item 4 consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission Regular hearing of march 2, 2016. I would request that we continue the draft minutes for the Architecture Review Committee for march 2, 2016 as a comment letter wasnt prepared to be included as part of the minutes so if we could continue that to the next hearing of april 6 i would appreciate that. Commissioners any questions on the minutes for the regular hearing on march 2 . Does any member of the public wish to comment on the minutes of march 2, 2016 . Seeing and hearing none we will close Public Comment and do i have a motion to adopt the minutes for the regular hearing and continue the hearing. So moved. Thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt the regular minutes for march 2, 2016 and continue the Architecture Review Commission meeting for daw two. Commissioner hasz. Yes. Commissioner matsuda. Yes. Ionin. Yes. Commissioner wolfram. Yes. That passes 60 and places you on commission five for commission comments and questions. Commissioner johns. The Current Issue of the magazine published by the San Francisco Historical Society has part two of jim haus history of the civic center so those that would like a detailed presentation on that subject i recommend it highly. Thank you. I have a request of planning staff. I understand that the new Mission Theater has been denied their one of the city landmarks we approved certificate of appropriateness has been denied and the tax credit application was denied and i believe there is an appeal and maybe at the next hearing agendize this item to write a support letter for the appeal. Certainly. Just in preparation the department has generally drafted a letter for the commissions review. Would you like us to draft a letter and edit and talk about at the hearing . Yes that makes sense. Okay. Are there any other items . Maybe we should report to the members of the public that we are continuing item 9, the integrate landmark. Is that correct . Item 10, the last item, item 10. We dont have a excuse me, a continuance calendar so we should take it up well, we could take it out of order but we received a request for continuance of 6a and b as well. Okay. We can do 6a and b because its first and then take so item 10 we dont have we dont have a continuance calendar but we can take it out of order. Lets take it out of order and if there is public here they dont have to wait. Sure. If there is nothing further under commission matters we can move to the regular calendar. We will take item 10 out of order as you heard. For 2015007219des and the Ingleside Presbyterian Church and the integrate for landmark designation and greater cloud of witnesses for landmark designation. Any Public Comment on this item . Does anyone want to speak to the continuance of the motion . Seeing none i do have a motion. I move to continue it. Thank you which are approximate commissioners. On that item 10 to continue to that date. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner yes. President wolfram. Yes. That moves 60 and on 6a and b for 2015000308coa at 38 liberty street certificate of appropriateness and 2015000308var at the same address requests for a variance. Commissioners i do have several speaker cards but we received a request from the project sponsor to continue the matter to april 20 i believe to investigate further an issue on the site and staff as far as i know is in support of that continuance, so you could elect to hear the matter, accept public testimony, or take up the matter of continuance only. Thank you. Commissioners should we any thoughts about this . I think if people have come we should hear them and then vote whether we want to continue or not. Okay. We will hear the item and then the continuance at this point. Good afternoon commissioners. I am from the Department Staff. This project is a cert for 38 liberty street as a potential contractor to the libertyhill district and for a singlecar garage and the primary facade based on the historic photograph and Additional Information from the libertyhill Historic District and construction of a threestory rear horizontal addition include side facade altercations. The department has reviewed the project and has found the project to be compliant with the article 10 and the secretary of the interior standards in the staff report. The department has received correspond ons of the project primarily removal of air street tree as well as facade alterations as well as the removal of the on street parking. In addition the department has received comments on the variance regarding the rear yard var rar and the extension into the rear yard. The department is working with the sponsor for the past couple months to make sure that the restoration is appropriate to the libertyhill district. We have a historic photograph of the exterior of the original residence and victorian in nature and the sponsor has worked towards restoring that piece of the facade or the entire facade back to the victorian character which is characteristic of the surrounding landmark district. We have included conditions of approval and to look at the landscape plan and the sidewalk, to examine the details in more detail as well as provide for Additional Information once the selected demo occurs on the exterior. Currently the exterior facade has a stucco, covered in stucco and Mission Revival feel and it would remove that detailing in past projects we seen scarring and things and might better inform the trim on the exterior so this concludes my presentation. The upon project sponsor is not present so if you have questions i am available. Thank you. Questions commissioners . So at this time we will take Public Comment on this item. I have several speaker cards so if you could please come forward when your name is called. You will have three minutes and there will be a warning bell 30 seconds before the time sup. Jeffrey gainer. Lets see. Can i get that too . Yeah. When you start speaking they will put it on. Okay great. My name is jeffrey gainer and live on liberty street and down two doors. I contacted rich to get a copy of the submitted plans and found that in the plans everything on the site plan was accurate except for the location of the tree, and the size of the tree. What the applicant submitted was 11 times smaller than what is actually out there. In black here theres the tree and the sidewalk cut out that was submitted and going out and measuring on site i find that the actual tree and sidewalk cut out are about area wise 11 times larger than that. You can see where in black hes drawn in a curb cut for the driveway. That would go through where the tree actually stands. You can see marked in white on site is the location of the tree that he submitted on the plans, and the actual tree of course is there off center and much larger than hes portraying. I think that if he were to offset the driveway a bit it might be possible to create a driveway between the trees and only taking about 15 inches out of each sidewalk cut out, that major tree and the tree uphill from it, but that still even so may cut through the roots. The roots are some major roots are right there on the surface and the sidewalk itself. The driveway of course would be 4 inches of concrete on top of 4 inches of crushed gravel and that would certainly cut into the tree roots. Sue yee wrote back when i informed her of this our inspector has inspected the tree and will deny the remule af of tree if an application is submitted. I request that dpw notify the planner that the sponsor should file an application for assessing the trees thickness, and chris altman of Trees Company said on the phone the tree is alive and healthy and cutting in the way they want to would kill it or cause it to fall over. Thank you. Joseph. Hello. So the proposed i actually wanted to point out here on his Architecture Design you see here on the drawing hes got an adjacent window here sir, im sorry to interpret interrupt you and please speak into the mic. The upstairs window has an adjacent window here. On the design there is no window here and two other windows on my building here. The proposal is actually build a bathroom adjacent from the upstairs bedroom which would eliminate privacy. I dont know if the owner has claimed it would be an opaque window and what capacity and if it would open. We worked with the owner and last time we were in correspondence with him was december 29 and we informed him and objected to the entire third floor and shared information about his health and concluded and said we could reject and appealed all we wanted and he intended to build the biggest house he could. We thought about the third story and considered part of it. My home actually faces the all the light from the bottom story and the second story would now face a wall and not have any light exposure as well as hes proposing to build two windows that would directly face into my home now. We lived on the property for 30 years and he plans hes made it clear he plans on flipping the property and reselling it for the most square foot annual possible. Thank you. Thank you. Brent hatcher. Brent hatcher. I live on liberty street right across the street. Me and my partner lived there since 1996. I am in opposition to the project primarily because the developer is deceptive and dishonest with the drawings that you can see and im not sure he is going to follow through in an appropriate way to do right by the neighborhood, by the trees, by the neighborhood by the neighbors so im in opposition, and i would really like to see a massing study. Im not overtly opposed to this size of this project. I do think its over scaled but i do think we need to see a massing study and i am surprised we havent seen one until now for the scale of the project. The last thing i would like to say is i find it odd were basing a Historic Restoration on the photograph. My my estimation its 18 inches or 2 feet of the facade. The photograph is of joeys house and this much of the photograph is the subject property so that concerns me a little as well that we would recreate an entire facade based on 2 feet and if were doing that and were adding the garage and raising the house it doesnt seem historic to me. Thank you. Thank you. Ozzie o dlm room. Good afternoon. I am from [inaudible] neighborhood organization. We also oppose this project based on three issues. Issue number one is misleading drawings and wrong measurements that obscure the fact there is a tree on site that will have to be removed. My question is why is it that these wrong drawings and measurements have not been caught before . And i understand its not in the purview of the