although i guess we can start .

okay. good afternoon, and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission hearing for wednesday, april 3rd, 2024. when we reach the item, you're interested in speaking to, please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. and finally, i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind at this time. i'll take roll, commission

chair warren here. commissioner baldauf here. commissioner campbell here, commissioner vergara here. and commissioner right here. we expect commission president matsuda and commissioner foley to be absent today. first on your agenda, commissioners, 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. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. seeing none. general public comment is closed. department matters. item one. department announcements. good afternoon, commissioners. richard gray, department staff. i have no updates. commission matters. item two consideration of adoption. draft minutes for march 20th, 2020 for members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the

commission on their minutes. again, you need to come forward seeing none. public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you commissioners. i'll move to. what am i moving to approve? thanks for adopting. thanks okay. is there a second? second? thank you. commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner baldauf, i commissioner campbell. yes, commissioner. vergara. yes. commissioner wright. yes. and commission chair. warren. yes. so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously, 5 to 0. item three. commission comments and questions. any comments or questions? announcements by the commissioners. commissioner vergara, i just have one announcement that mr. sucré is the guest on the. i think it's the march 22nd, outside lands pond, podcast of the western

neighborhoods project. he's there speaking about preservation and in particular the citywide survey. i highly recommend it. is it april 22nd? no. last month. march last month. march 22nd. yeah. oh. oh, yeah. oh, and there's a it's every two weeks they, they do a new podcast. yeah. yeah thank you. seeing nothing further commissioners their consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance. and currently there are no items proposed to be continued placing a placing us under your regular calendar for item for case number 2024. hyphen 000929 pta for the property at two new montgomery street. this is a major permit to alter. please note that at your last hearing on march 20th, 2024, you heard and closed public comment and continue the matter to today by a vote of 7 to 0. good afternoon, commissioners. rich sucré here on behalf of jonathan zimmer,

planning department staff, the item before you is a request for a major permit to alter for the project at two new montgomery street, historically known as the palace hotel. as proposed, the project seeks to replace the neon tubing of the two rooftop signs with an led product intended to simulate the quality of light that actually neon provides. other work is confined to associated rooftop mechanical equipment to allow for this conversion. no changes to the 1909 building or the landmark garden court are proposed. the general base or framing of the rooftop sign appears to date to 1954, at which time they were first installed, and red sheridan palace. this was altered in 1995 to the current iteration of the signs, which simply reads the palace we are not certain whether the existing tubing dates to 1954 or 95, as the were the letters for the words. the could have possibly have been shifted over from the sheridan lettering. this was a meaningful and notable change regardless, but staff does not dispute the current signs or

character defining features of the overall site, nor their iconic nature. i think there may be a bit of confusion on the proposal status that could be helpful to address upfront. while a permit has been filed, no permit to perform this work has yet been issued or approved by any relevant city agency. the department has discretion to bring any project subject to articles ten and 11 to this commission, and the entirety of the project is before you today. further, staff are not calling for a specific position. proposals are submitted for review and then staff then assess them based on the relevant provisions of the planning code and provide appropriate recommendations. in this case, these relevant positions are as outlined in article 11 and the secretary of interior standards. the specifics of this case are important. the subject signs have been previously meaningfully altered. the neon tubing has deteriorated and has been nonfunctional for approximately five years, and there will be no changes to the signs other than in its material and method of illumination. the proposed led product is designed

with the intent to mimic the quality of warmth and light that neon provides, and one elevated atop a nine story structure. the distinction, when viewed from the street, becomes increasingly lessened. as noted in your packets, staff do not believe this sets any precedent for future neon replacement. we maintain the belief that at this time, even the best of simulated led products is insufficient for the replacement of neon at the ground or lower levels, and in this case, it comes down to all the specific parameters noted in our analysis. as within the last several days, the department has received approximately an additional 220 letters of opposition. all of which call for the retention of the neon lettering and expressed doubt regarding led from a visual visual sustainability and functional perspective. no letters in support have been received. the department position is as detailed above and in your packets and with that staff recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation and the project sponsor is here, we're happy to answer any questions. thank you. project sponsors. you have three

minutes if you need it . there will be public comment, sir. okay we afford the project sponsor. three minutes. okay. i'll go kind of briefly just to let the hotel speak as well, i think, i'm charlie stroud with arrow sign company. i've been with arrow about 35 years, kind of overseeing design, engineering, estimating, and we, we're very familiar with neon. we do neon restorations, including the bridge text, the lipo. i did the coca cola original billboard, not the original, but the second one. it was rebuilt for neon, but we

also do a lot of led and for certain applications. i just think led is a much better fit, especially when it has to be serviced. when service is such an important aspect, led when done correctly, is a much more reliable method of illumination, and we've done substitutions on certain projects. it makes sense and other ones it doesn't. and i think this is an ideal project because of the just the nature of being roof mounted and the access to service the display. i am james tyler. i'm the director of engineering for the palace hotel. i just want to share with you my experience with it. i've worked in san francisco for 30 years as a building engineer, station engineer 39. for about ten years i've been in hospitality for 24 years, and i've dealt with a lot of neon signs, and it's stated before, when they're lower, they're great, but when it's higher, it really represents a safety issue

for our hotel. we have to put scaffolding up, we have to get contractors in and everything else. and it's just, it's not very convenient. the leds will allow the sign to stay lit longer because if we lose a sign, if we lose a neon letter, sometimes it takes up to 2 or 3 months to get it replaced. when i was working at the down the street at a different hotel before i joined the palace hotel, their signage was down for, i'd say six months. i'd call the chief because i thought i was a little embarrassed about it, and he'd tell me that, you know, it's access. it depends on getting on. the contractor schedule, getting the scaffolding up, weather access. and sometimes if we lose a letter, it could be out for three four months. and that really impacts the signage and the, you know, and the hotel with the leds, we wouldn't have that problem. and that's really one of our goals. and one of my biggest part of my job is safety for my team. and that's access in that signage. also so that's why we have to hire it out. we can't take care of it in house. so that. good afternoon. i'm

kevin boland i'm the manager of the palace. and first of all, thank you for your time. and just to a few things, the palace , the owners of the palace have been there since 1973. they did a major renovation and have proven that they respect the historical side of the building. we also own the palace garage, which we have the famous palace garage neon signs. we have no intention of replacing them with led. we will when they go out, we replace them with neon. and right now, as you know, throughout the city, we're suffering. we've had a had a rough several years. thank you sir, that is your time. thank you very much. appreciate your time and effort. okay. very good, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item, you will each receive one minute. my name is woody

labounty. i'm the president and ceo of san francisco heritage, apologies for speaking out. i was surprised that we were reopening this for presentation from the project sponsor and for planning to give its opinion, so i wasn't prepared that, public comment would be reopened. and i think we could have had a lot more neon supporters here if we had known the public comment was going to be reopened, san francisco heritage very much supports the retention of neon and not the approval of this project, as i said last meeting, this is very similar to how you would assess a historic property and the materiality of the historic fabric. so please deny this project. good afternoon. commission. my name is al barna. i'm co-founder of san francisco neon, which is a neon preservation organization here in san francisco. and i would just like to, address the fact that the safety concerns that

were brought up and maintenance concerns won't be all that different from neon in the first place. you're still going to have to access that sign periodically, and maybe even more frequently, depending on how you feel about led products and their longevity. just as much as you do for neon, you're going to have to get up there on a scaffold or create some kind of a fall protection system and i actually have a background in occupational health and safety. after 33 years, a recently retired. and i know that all this work can be done safely. thank you. hello, i'm gary parks. i also spoke last week in favor of neon. now, this is not to say that the folks from arrow sign don't have some good arguments, but, from personal observation of neon versus led out there in the wild, as it were. i have seen so many led signs, even of good quality,

fail frequently, and it just seems to be it happens all the time. there are several in hayward that are constantly doing it. one is recently, installed, and a week later several letters were out and it hadn't even rained. so, you know, i'm still for neon in this case. and if it, if you want to know about maintenance, i work on the grand lake theater, rooftop sign. that's light. that's, light bulbs. and we do incorporate led bulbs in that now, but. so rooftop signs can be challenging, and i understand that, but, i keep seeing these led signs going out, and, part of it is it's plastic. and the almighty sun, rots plastic. there's no exceptions. thank you very much. hello. my name is jean. i'm a working photographer here in san francisco, and i

would like to support the keeping the neon, more more as a historical preservation thing. the building, the palace is a beautiful, beautiful hotel. it's, like, iconic to our city. and to have that sign switched out from neon, i think would be, would not be the right move. the way that neon light emits is different. and i know that they talked about the difference from the heights, but people are seeing this thing from all over. you'll see drone shots. maybe we get more, movies filmed here. there's always iconic shots of people on the roofs near neon signs. and that light is just so beautiful. and i think that, you know, removing that and replacing it with led would really detract from a beautiful, iconic building that we have here in the city. so i would like to, to say that thank you. okay. last call for public comment on this item. seeing none public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioners.

commissioner baldauf, i have a couple of questions. probably for the planning department to begin with. what, as i understand it, this sign has been out for six years. is there a standard of maintenance that the city requires of signs before they become. they lose their permitted authority to be there and requirement for maintenance and things like that, article ten does have a maintenance requirement. that's associated with, landmarking. however, our enforcement on the maintenance requirement in article ten is complaint driven, and we don't we have not received complaints from members of the public with regard to that. so our enforcement staff, sadly, are limited in their capacity. we have a total of five, for the whole city. and

generally we work on and prioritize any enforcement projects that we have relative to city landmarks. when we receive those kind of complaints . so if someone were to make a complaint like that, the neon was out on this sign, what would then be the process or what would the owner of the sign be required to do? so we would receive. we would send a notice of complaint, to the property owner and basically then start working with them. in most cases, our enforcement process is not meant to be punitive. we work with basically people to get them to come into compliance with the city's rules and regulations. and so in this case, for example, on a landmark property, we have maintenance requirements. and so what we would do is inspect the property, ensure and work with them to come up with a treatment plan. in this instance, it was the owner themselves that came in with the permits to kind of revive the sign and bring it back. thank you. commissioner

vergara, this question is for mr. sucré, as i understand it, a few years ago, when, ghirardelli square sign was replaced, that was a case of incandescent bulbs being replaced by, led. is that right? yeah, that's correct. we worked on that project back in 2017. okay. and did a similar kind of replacement of, to switch to led. all right. and i think arrow sign company did the work then as well. i think that's correct. yeah. okay. thank you. commissioner campbell , i mean, i, i echo the sentiment of all of the support, for neon, i think it's impossible to compete, and i think it would be my preference to, to see it replace in kind. and i'm surprised to hear that ownership hasn't listed costs as an issue, my assumption was that

the cost, the reason the sign hadn't been replaced to date is because of the cost of replacing neon, perfect is the enemy of good. so i would hate to hate to throw away a good solution. for no solution. so i think what would be worse is to not see that sign lit at all. so i guess i'd like to understand is if we say no, we require neon. are we not getting a lit sign in the foreseeable future? that's a very good question. as you know, in 2020, with covid, we closed down for a year and a half and a lot of people have forgotten covid since. but this year, our revenues are still down about 30% and our profitability is down. we're basically breaking even right now, slightly over that. so the cost of replacing the neon sign that we've looked at it is the cost. the cost difference between replacing the neon sign. there's a big cost

compared to led. we believe the led will last a lot longer. of course we'll get replaced or get maintenance maintained, but on top of it is if one sign goes out which has been happening. it's not just all the letters go out, the l goes out and it looks like paypal ass. you know, it doesn't, it takes time to replace that. and that's expensive. and every time one letter goes out, you have to put the scaffolding up and, and you have, telecom sites up there as well, which has to be switched off. so it just takes time. so you do that next month another letter goes out. so it's very expensive. so what we would we'd and it's not your top priority, with costs you know. so that's. yes so we were told that the commission and probably rightly so the commission, your focus is more on the historical side, not

on the financial side, but there is a historical there is a financial benefit to moving to led, but more the convenience and long terme viability of the sign would is on the cost side. there is a benefits to it. thank you. i have another question, if you were to proceed with a neon sign, does all of the neon tubing, the glass tubing need to be replaced and then redone, or can the existing tubing be reused as it is? i guess where i'm going with this is if we were to approve the led, is it your, you know, is it could we go back to neon one day or would it be starting all over versus you'd have to start all over anyway if you were to proceed with neon. yes. so if you were to go with led and then to go back, you would be starting over and redoing the neon. i'm talking to the technicians. you know, a fair amount. they said at least a third of the neon

that was there was either broken or, in not usable condition. the housings were kind of a variety of ceramic and glass. some were broken, just in overall, just many years of just service. and a lot of the wiring is, is obviously just older wiring that would have to be replaced as well. but thank you. commissioner. right. yeah i have a technical question, i think this, would be probably for arrow. and also, i'm curious to hear the experience of the others in the audience that, work in the field, and maybe planning has also, touched on this in their research, but, it's my understanding that led, bulbs and led fixtures, have have a, suffer kind of from a

condition that is, lumen depreciation where the, the sign or where the light eventually becomes dimmer and dimmer, and so i'm curious if in this type of, application, if that would be, similar with other leds and i suspect that it is. there is depreciation over the way they rate leds. is, is, if you hear 50,000 hours, it's not like bulbs where 50,000 hours, half of the bulbs would be out at 50,000 hours. they rate it. as to 70% brightness where it would be noticeable at that point. that's how they come up with the kind of the benchmark for putting a number to it. but this particular product is rated for a 50,000 hours. it is an rgb, so it has all three leds. so it

there's a bit of a variable where it could be longer just depending on how it is illuminated. the reds typically are rated for more like 100,000 hours. but the but the white would be closer to 50,000 hours. and so, so what you're saying is that this sign will eventually become dimmer, over time and at, at the point where it becomes noticeably dim, you know, it's gradual. so it might not be as noticeable, but, there will be a time when people look at the sign and it's like, oh, well, that's not as bright as it was in that photo. and and or that's not as bright as i remembered it. then and so, yeah, i the repair for that would be replacing again one with led, tubing again. yeah. but at 50,000 hours, i mean, you're talking, you know, depending on how many hours of the day that it's on, you know, talking 10 to 15 years just depending on the,

like i say, the amount of hours we've had, a good example is, you know, like i brought up in the previous meeting is the metreon the target there has been up well over ten years as, as the w down in la, as has, i think a perfect example of a white is the, the california hotel in oakland. and that's, that's been up. i would, i want to say about ten years. and it's definitely not noticeable, where you would pick up that it's that it's dimmer at that point. just going to say if you do an average of eight hours a day for the whole year, it takes, excuse me if you do an average of the lights being on for eight hours a day for the whole year, it'd take over 40 years for that. degrading the grading of the light. it'd be up there about 40 years. and i'm curious if any of the other, the others in the audience that have experience in this field, have anything to say about lumen depreciation or wear

of these? it's fine if you don't. but just curious. i'm i'm in my head thinking very much about the character of the sign and the character of the lighting and the quality of the lighting. and it's interesting to me, also that, planning staff and their assessment already, he, believes that this the quality and character of this lighting would not be appropriate for, a sign that we're lower. so that that does make me think about the long terme character of and quality of this. if i could, one other factor, even with neon, there is especially with white, you can get kind of some mercury staining over time in the glass where, where it settles. and we have, you know, often we have to replace tubing, or you can even see it in some of the photos that have been featured of, of

the previous illumination of the sign, where you can start to see some staining in the glass. so it's not totally unique with, neon versus led. there's, there's issues with the long terme lighting with neon as well. and then in terms of the character and quality of the light, is the led, replacement product, matched to the same color temperature that you would get and what impact what what visual impacts are there or differences? well, there are many choices with led as far as color temperature. if you're using white leds, there's anywhere from, you know, 2700 to 5 or 6000 available in color temperature. and there's also the rgb led, which is what we're proposing here, which has the ability to make different shades of white. not the same necessarily as the temperatures that you get with the pure whites. but you have a lot of

options with colors and it's just getting better all the time. they're getting longer lasting and improved quality. just as technology evolves. and what is the color temperature of a neon white led or it varies on white, similar with with, with led neon has really warm down to about you know, 2700 up to, you know, 7000. most i believe the existing was about in that 4500 range, which is kind of a medium warm white. thank you, i just have a few comments and i am glad commissioners are going to be, you know, commenting a little bit more on this, this it you know, this building is a landmark, and, and, you know, according to the secretary standards, you know, we should retain, historic fabric where we

can sort of a unique technology. me, and some something that obviously a lot of people are attached to, you know, that's not to say that new technology is not good, i think where i'd like to understand and i think the commissioners have, you know, brought up a wide range of comments. i'm going to bring up something different, so, so i'm hearing that the maintenance, for the neon is problematic, in that the transformers are likely, next to the lettering, because the distance probably affects, affects the, the way that it illuminates. it's, and i'm wondering whether there could be better access, created for that, you know, such as a

permanent scaffold, that sits where the transformers are, and or consideration of, you know, maybe there is an advance to how to get the power to the lettering, while having the transformer on the roof level. so that you have easier access. and i think the, you know, the 50,000 hour number, i just did a quick calculation. i think it was eight hours a day for years. it would be 17 years, i'm not sure what would be the life of neon, so i'd like to ask about the transformers and the life of neon. if you could address those . the. i think the transformers are our experience with power supplies is speaking with leds.

we're getting much longer. life with power supplies. i think the warranty is seven years on. the current power supplies that we that we use, that is the big advantage or a big advantage is we would house all of the power supplies at the roof level because it's low voltage wiring for the for the led. i'm sorry. yeah. because it's low voltage going from the tubing down to the electrical enclosure, transformers are, it's funny. it seems like the older transformers always have worked better. they do some transformers last a long time. our experience is we get longer life out of the neon or the for neon. when i'm sorry. when i speak a transformers, i'm talking about neon and so especially the older ones, we can get very long life. but the newer transformers and it's been this way for years. they're starting to improve a little bit, but we definitely have more service calls with transformers

than we do with power supplies, power supplies have just gotten extremely reliable. i brought up the example of the target sign. that's a huge sign with multiple power supplies, and i have not had one service call in over ten years on that, similar with the w, i had one service call with just very large signs. they've really improved the technology with power supply. is it possible for neon to have the transformer, you know, if there's some sort of permanent scaffold that has the transformer on that scaffold, is it possible? i think it would be possible to possibly put a platform behind the letters. they're all located inside the letters. it's somewhat problematic to have them remote to run high voltage, you know, over a distance. and that's why they're typically located very close to, to the neon, you could build, you know, a platform off of the back, potentially where you could access it, but you

would still, if you're most of the problem with neon, the tubes itself is typically at the electrode where it goes into the housing, over time, the moisture, the soot and the bugs that are attracted in there, will fill up and clog the weep holes that are in the, the, the housing. and that's where you'll get either arcing or a short inside of there. and the electrode will fail or the glass will crack, or those are typical service calls for neon. and then along with the transformers, it's definitely our experience that the leds that we're using now, especially because they have gotten so much better, are superior from a service standpoint, if you were doing the neon, would you have to make a new tubing, and not reuse what's there? i would do it as a complete restoration. that's how we've done several of these jobs. if we try to piecemeal it, it, it would be a much better,

more reliable product to replace it with the same product and it would not be possible. so currently each of the letters has its own transformer is multiple transformers, multiple transformers. so each letter has multiple tubes. yes. okay yeah. and typically neon, you know, they're in that kind of 8 to 10 foot range units. okay. so, and then as far as the lettering, it's a it's a coded lettering, right. it's, it's got some sort of porcelain coating. yeah. lettering is, it's a beautiful product. it's porcelain enamel. it's definitely the best type of sign on. steel on steel. and there is a lot of as you can see in the photos, there's a lot of rust stains because what happens over time, the edges of the like, the housing holes get chipped or just the edges of the material of the porcelain is chipped and you'll get or the or the tube supports have rusted. you'll see rust dripping down.

so we were going to clean that. okay. clean with we'll do the best we can. it's sometimes the stains can be really difficult to get out, but there's, there's a process for and as, as far as patching, you would patch it in kind with steel. right. not aluminum i, i would patch it with aluminum. but we'll use a coating on the aluminum for the dissimilar metals. it'll be a thin aluminum patch that will be mounted with like a vhb tape. and even the track when you when you work on a porcelain sign, you never want to drill it. it'll crack it. so all of the track that we install, it'll be an aluminum track with a vhb tape on the back of it. so it could be removed. it's strong enough to hold the product, but could be removed in in the vhb over time. okay, i will go on to the next commissioner. commissioner vergara. did i understand that the original sign and i don't remember this, but that said sheridan palace, the letters were in red. is that

what i. i'm sure that was the same because it's porcelain. it appears to be the original porcelain. it's a it's the same, same color. so so they were always that that white color. okay. thank you. that's my. unless they replace the letters because it it's, the porcelain just lasts forever. it works so well. thank you. commissioner baldauf, i appreciate everyone taking time with this, because i actually think it's a really complicated question, because i think we're talking about an art form in the neon as an art form. it's a technology as well. and it is, the spirit of a time and a place. and so i think what i struggle with is that now led lights and i assume based on your product that it we could

for pride we could have multicolored, letters up there and we could do all these things which are actually very artful. but are they actually the original art of the sign that was there? and i think the sign, the tubing was red in my memory, not the letters. it was a red neon. is that correct? that i, i can't i can't speak to that. i don't know. oh okay. just for historical purposes. not not, argument or debate, in the 1980s, i lived in the oakland hills, and one of the fun things that i could see with my binoculars was sheraton palace. it was white. it was white. it was white. thank you. in any event, i, i struggle because i think that the irony of neon for

me is that when certain letters go out, that's actually part of the story, letters flickering is part of the story. it's what is, in all sorts of film noir movies, it is a whole way of doing things. and that's why i appreciate the neon aficionados here. i also appreciate the incredible challenge the hotel business has been in san francisco over the last bunch of years, and so i, i, i don't i actually personally don't know where i want to vote on this. and i'm just saying i feel very conflicted. i would love if we were to say we're going to go with the, led approach that that somehow the hotel which which has done amazing jobs memorializing its history in all sorts of vitrines that i've enjoyed over the years, could

actually talk about the history of this sign, maybe work with some of the, the groups, maybe preserve some of the, the tubing if it's all going to get trashed anyway, which i feel very sad about that, that there's some way of creating the win win here. i, i'm, i feel very uncomfortable with this, to be quite honest. commissioner campbell. sorry i give you the commitment now that i don't know if you've been in the hotel, but the one good thing out of covid, we created a museum in the hotel for the hotel. i can give a commitment now that we will. i think it's a great idea. we will do a section in regards to the. because we spent many hours on this sign. i think it deserves a section inside the museum. we'll give that commitment to get it done by the end of the year. i

will also say to commissioner wright's concern is we have our ownership, the family who owns the hotel. they have a capital plan and a capital cycle plan. so part of that is if the sign gets up updated this year, that it will go into the capital plan to replace the led lights. normally they do it like the elevators and all that before the end of the life. so the plan would be between 10 and 15 years that we'd be we'd be back to upgrade the signage. so it's not like we'll wait until the lights stop working. so thank you, i'm sorry, sir, commissioner campbell, i i'm in full support of getting these signs illuminated and activated. i think it's really there in there. sad. right now, just sitting there without lights. and i'm hearing neon. not as an option for this ownership group, and while i echo the sentiment of wanting to see them neon, i don't want to see them not lit.

i don't want to see this sign unlit. so i think the nine story location works in our favor, i think the conditions of this approval, i'm comfortable with those. which is seeing a mock up of the lights, and then also seeing seeing them in situ, i believe once they're once they're installed before approving, so i'm in support of this. commissioner. right. yes, thank you, it was interesting to me, the comment and was timely because i actually had the question, but that, the, the, one of the comments was that well maintained or if, if, if the neon were fully rehabilitated and, that that would be more stable than the

current neon, as the way it is now and in a kind of a piecemeal , repair fashion and so, i and i get that some of that is the electrodes, the wiring, and the tubes, the housings, etc. and so i think there could also be, if you're thinking about durability , the case for, just rehabbing the neon, but that's, what's what's on my mind. thank you. so how i feel about it is that this is one of the most iconic historic buildings in san francisco. it's on market street and, you know, our, you know, our call calling here is to

preserve historic elements and, and a lot of times, we do have to you know, replace things, and sometimes it's not in kind. but in those cases, usually it's something that's less significant or a noncontributing feature or, a lower feature. and in this case, i think we're talking about a sign that is very iconic, a very prominent, and, you know, the secretary of the interior standards talks about replacing in-kind. and so i think i feel, you know, strongly that that, neon should be used for this sign and that being said, i think there could be improvements to, providing better for, like, maintenance

support. creating a structure to have, you know, the ability to maintain it better, and so, and i appreciate commissioner wright's comment that if all the neon were being redone, that we would see more years out of it than piecemeal. so i appreciate that, and, those are my comments. are there any motions i move to approve with the conditions contained in the executive summary? i second? there's nothing further. commissioner there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner baldauf. no commissioner. campbell. yes. commissioner. vergara. yes. commissioner wright. no. commission. chair. warren no. that motion fails. 2 to 3 with commissioners baldauf, right, and warren voting against. is

there an alternate motion such as a continuance until the full, all members of the commission are present to vote, for instance. sorry. what was that, jonas i didn't is there an alternate motion, to disapprove or to continue when possibly all members of the commission are present? i move to disapprove the, proposal. is there a second? second, i can't second, yes you can. okay. second. on that motion to disapprove, commissioner baldauf. yes, commissioner. campbell. no, commissioner. vergara. no. commissioner. wright. yes. and commission chair. warren. yes. that motion fails. 3 to 2 with commissioners campbell and vergara voting against. is there

an alternate motion such as a continuance? for example, i commissioners, just as a reminder, you have to have four commissioners to approve or disapprove. you need four affirmative votes to take an action, right? with exception to procedural matters such as a continuance. i'll move to continue until we have, hopefully a full complement at our next meeting. so second, looking at your advanced calendar, commissioners is, currently it appears as though may 1st, may be your first hearing with all commissioners present, at least, that have advised me as such. so i believe commissioner vergara made the motion. and commissioner campbell, you seconded a continue. i did, i seconded it. thank you, commissioner

nageswaran seconded the continuance to may 1st on that motion to continue to may 1st. commissioner baldauf i commissioner campbell. yes. commissioner vergara. yes. commissioner. wright. yes. commissioner. commission chair. warren. yes. so move. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5 to 0. we'll see you again. may 1st. commissioners that will place us on item. jonas, can i ask a question? on that, to clarify, and this is kind of in, kind of a follow up to mr. labounty's, question or comment, about whether or not there will be, public comment allowed on that item and whether or not, people should come or. yes, even though we have heard this matter twice now, and have closed public

comment twice whenever an item is, put on the agenda for action, we must provide for public comment. i'll be reduced. so our practice is to provide the sponsor with three minutes and, members of the public with one minute. again, this has been heard twice now. so the chair can actually reduce that time further if, if they wish. but that's been our practice. thank you. can i also ask a follow up question on the procedure and this kind of thing, will all staff, be, i think there are a number of questions regarding, for instance, the cost of a neon installation versus the led, installation, that it would be good to have a sort of staff

position on these things that i would help, our thought, our process here. and we didn't have staff that and i, i think i would like to ask for a follow up staff presentation on may 1st. sure so, commissioners, just to provide a little insight in general, we don't typically ask for or weigh in on on items related to cost. however, if you so desire that information, we can ask this project sponsor to provide that information at your next hearing. but in general, all the department staff does not usually take an opinion, nor ask for items related to cost. i personally, for me this is a very material fact that would influence my thought process. sure, we can certainly ask the project sponsor to prepare a short presentation in their time, related to the cost of the two items. or or actually, could

could it be included in the package? sure. that'd be fine. okay, we'll move on to the next item. no other follow up questions. no item five commissioners for case number 2023. hyphen 005134 crv for the downtown conservation district historic design standards. this is for your consideration to adopt, modify, or disapprove. good afternoon, commissioners rebecca salgado planning staff, before you is a request to adopt the downtown historic design standards. these standards are intended to provide detailed guidance for business tenants, building owners and planning staff around the most common scopes of work found at historic buildings in san francisco's

downtown. these design standards would apply to properties located within conservation districts listed in article 11 of the planning code. significant and contributory properties listed in article 11, and landmarks listed in article ten of the planning code that are located within the c3. commercial zoning districts. the recommendations of the downtown historic design standards are grounded in the secretary of the interior standards. much of the guidance provided in the downtown historic design standards has been implemented by the planning department for over a decade, through guideline documents that were not formally adopted by the historic preservation commission, including guidelines for awnings , canopies and marquees, storefronts and signage. if adopted, the proposed downtown historic design standards will allow department staff to provide preservation guidance to the public in conformance with planning code section 11 11.6, which requires local guidelines to be in alignment with the general plan and to be adopted

by both the hpc and the planning commission. the scopes of work covered by the downtown design standards primarily fall under the following four categories storefronts, buildings, and entries. signage and awnings. canopies and marquees. for each of these categories, the design standards provide guidance on allowable materials, finishes, methods of illumination, an awning, and signage, dimensions and relationship to the street, among other aspects. a fifth category in the design standards, temporary activations , is directly connected to legislation passed last year that allows for the installation of temporary signage or decorative artistic displays on buildings within the c three zoning district for a 60 day period. so i have here a couple representative pages from the proposed downtown historic design standards. for reference. the standards provide specific allowable dimensions and percentages where applicable, such as the requirement for transparent fenestration for no

less than 60% of the ground level. staff's recommendation is for adoption of the historic design standards to support the revitalization of san francisco's downtown, while retaining the special character of its historic properties. this concludes my presentation. unless there are any questions. very good members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. good afternoon, commissioners. woody labounty, president and ceo of san francisco heritage. we had the pleasure to work with planning and review these standards, and we really didn't have any substantial comments, they seem fine. and i think what we're trying to get at here is to have as many adopted standards as possible, which i think come into play with a lot of the state housing production laws. so we're in favor of these standards. last call for public

comment. as long as i'm here, i'd also like to, state that s.f. neon is in favor of the standards, particularly in the fact that they will incorporate standards for signage, which i think is really important, obviously. thank you. final last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed in this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioners. commissioner baldauf, i would i would also like to echo mr. labounty's comment that i think that it's very nice to have very clear guidelines, and i think

they're beautifully produced. and, and i applaud the graphics and, and, i also did note that the neon signs were called out as an important fact in the downtown sign scape. and so i think, i'm fully in support of them. commissioner campbell, i agree. i had that comment as well. it's like a very nicely put together, concise, clear, visually, pleasing document, and i'm all for our clarity and creating a smoother process, especially for our small businesses. i had a question about the storefront section, a point two, when it comes to, you know, matching historic storefront material as it reads when no longer present, replaced with new high quality materials that match all historic profiles

, tones and finishes. i'm curious. that sounds pretty restrictive. like we have to match exactly the profiles that were there sometimes, you know, we i've seen that be open more to interpretation. maybe it's a modern interpretation of a profile. so so, just curious if how we address that, it seems a little bit, limited, rebecca salgado, planning staff, so the intention with that is not to match exactly, especially if there's no historic fabric left, in that case, we would actually likely want it to be slightly different from the historic to differentiate itself. but we would want the materials to still be compatible with the district and with the building, and if we had good documentation of what the storefront looked

like historically, then i think we could get closer to those original materials. if we don't, then we would just go for something that's a more general, simplified version of a typical historic storefront, framing of that time. i wonder if we would consider adding that clarity to the document. certainly you can add a condition into your approval, and then we're happy to update the standards accordingly. otherwise, i thought it was fantastic. and it's a living document, so it will evolve over time. but this seems like a really great start. so thank you for your hard work on it. thank you, so my comments also relate to the particulars as far as storefront profiles. having done a lot of different historical storefronts, it's a huge challenge to get an exact match to a storefront. profiles that are existing, they're very,

some are very fine. and when, when an if the structure of the storefront changes that changes the fact that we have to have a beefier profile just for structural reasons. so i think it should have some, the standards or guidelines should have some flexibility in that, to understand that at the same time, you know, if there was a company making the smaller profiles and it was workable, that would be fantastic, the i also had a comment on, you know, architectural, grills over louvers, when, exhaust is calculated, it's the free air that comes through the louver

that is calculated and that is subtracting anything that's in front of it. so there are some issues with having grills in front of louvers, and i, i don't necessarily need a grill in front of a louver, a louver is a louver, whether, you know, it's meant to exhaust. so i, i don't have a, attachment to having a grill over a louver, i do worry that if we do that, the free air would have to increase and we'd have bigger openings at the facade that we would not want. so i think we should think about that a little bit more, as far as signage, awning and canopy attachments. you know, over the years i've noticed, you know, when i've saw approvals that,

you know, there's been a, a push to use the, joints of, of mortar joints. and there was a particular sign that i worked on, that was a vertical banner sign that was had there were existing attachments to the face of the masonry that i wanted to reuse. and it, you know, i was, you know, overridden by the department in terms of having that. and instead they required that the attachments be at the joints, the sign is no longer there because it fell off, so we need to be kind of cognizant of specifics. yes. if, if, if it is possible to put them in joints, that's, helpful. but we need to make sure the wind loads are not going to be excessive, that people are going to get hurt and i, i don't have an issue with attaching to the face of masonry. it can be patched in

the future or the or brick can be turned, or masonry units can be changed, i, i am more interested in having a long lasting element stay in place, and have, you know, everything work, work, work together. so those are my comments. commissioner wright, yeah. i just, picked up on on one, one of the points on page 35 where it's talking about new marquees and construct being constructed of high quality materials. i totally agree, it does go on to say generally powder coated or anodized. and, and i, i wonder if that's a little bit limiting, i mean, it says generally, so i guess it could be interpreted maybe for the record that it's,

you know, not limited, but the focus really is, on, long jevity and durability, color and glossy retention of the coating, and then i would just note, that i think generally also, powder coating and anodized finishes are very hard to retreat or recoat if they get damaged or fade or get scratched. so, we wouldn't want to be throwing out whole signs, it's not sustainable either, because it's easier to do that than to, than to be able to retreat. yeah. commissioners, i think you're highlighting a little bit of the challenge that obviously we had where we know that we have allowed for a lot of discretion

and that these guidelines are adopting a lot of our standard practice to the extent that we can. we're trying to eliminate, limit, eliminate the discretion to the extent that we are able to. so that way, then we provide a firmer guidance for what we have. you know, i think that's generally the trend of like the moving away from a guideline line and now towards a standard. and so i think in a lot of the instances that you're highlighting, this is us basically saying, well, this is the standard. so if you have any suggestions for other alternate materials or other things that you would like us to modify, you're welcome to, adopt them into the standards that we have now, and then we'll revise them accordingly. but that inherently is the challenge that we have with a lot of the standard versus guideline discussion. if we leave it to open ended, it means then we can't enforce it

right? and so and then it becomes not a standard. it becomes something that is too discretionary. so, so to the extent that you can kind of put the parameter on it, that's what we have to do moving forward with almost all of our guidelines, which are basically converting them into standards. so could we, potentially, adopt these standards and then provide by email some. oh, sure, you know, options for different types of materials or. yeah, most definitely. and we can always keep in mind we can adopt the current version. and then if commissioners have additional comments, we can always bring it back and then re adopt them. so okay. exactly oh commissioner baldauf yeah i guess i'm trying to understand sort of what we're

creating here and what you just said, helped me a lot, i guess from a process point of view, for instance, if i was being asked to design a store for a certain computer company, in a beaux art building very similar to one that they did in paris, and no historic storefront existed in that building and that store that company wanted an all glass storefront with a division of divisions that were reminiscent of mullions, but were not mullions that would run afoul of these guidelines or these standards, not guidelines. standards i think would that that client have the ability to come in front of us and ask for an exception? often because i'm struggling, i think having clear

standards is good, but i think also being able to do, good architecture is important too. and i could hear the argument that, this meets the secretary of interior standards because the historic material doesn't exist. and so we're doing the ultimate contrast by having no mullions. and, and again, i don't know that as part of a normal set of standards, we want to necessarily provide that it would have to be done incredibly well. and so that's where guidelines are better than standards, because guidelines let that opportunity exist. but if we codify these as standards, do we have to then guess, okay, there is going to be that glass version that i can imagine, and so i'm, i'm curious how best to proceed here. do we say we adopt these standards? but there is

always you can always go to hpc and have a conversation about what you want to do. or we have to guess in advance all these different things. to the extent that we can, what we're trying to do with the standards is communicate out to the public what the department will say as directed to us by the hpc. so, for example, typically storefront work does not require a certificate, a minor permit to alter or no correct. it requires a minor permit to alter and so it's handled usually at the staff level for people that don't want to follow the guidance that you have given to us, they can always request to bring it to a public hearing and to a major permit to alter and then let the hpc, adjudicate on it. but keep in mind, these are also standards that you're adopting for yourself as well. so and that's the key thing here

is that we are we have to move most of our guidance towards something more firm and less away from something discretionary. right. all the new state laws that the state is basically been implementing tie itself back into objective design standards. and to the extent that we can, you know, san francisco has had a lot of its processes built on subjective, which means that, you know, myself and our staff basically are able to weigh in our input onto it. what the state is basically saying in a lot of cases, is, is you city's move away from that. we want you to give more surety to the public, more surety to your architects. and so this is our attempt of basically taking a lot of our long standing practice. right? in this case, it's a very small, test window, like we a lot of this is been

practiced for the entire time that i've been here for 15 years. of how we basically approach downtown and how we approach these things. so, you know, i'm certainly the hpc can kind of, you know, dictate whatever rules they want for themselves, but but that's that's why we're moving forward with this document at this time, commissioner. right. yeah. and just to clarify, i think, what i, what i think commissioner baldauf is asking, and in that scenario where our, historic profiles or historic material is missing, i don't believe that there's a requirement that it go back that way. it, and so an architect would have license, or designer would have license to bring before, planning staff, you know, as long as they're

kind of meeting these standards, that we're looking at now, you know, an alternate to a historic, profiles, but if something were extant and if it were being replaced, the expectation would be that it should match the appearance, then you get into splitting hairs about if it's like, extant in this bay, but not in that bay, but i think historic material in, in, in profile if it's missing, it's not it's not expected that it would have to go back that, that way. excuse me. that's how it reads now in the, in the guidelines. right opposite of what you're saying. i might have missed that match. historic storefront materials and when no longer present, replace with new high quality materials that match all historic profiles, tones and finishes. that's pretty. so i

guess for in terms of, maybe clarifying that, maybe that is intended for like a bay where, where the historic material is gone. but, there are still extant, examples of it on the building and other bays or other locations. so maybe, maybe there's a some room for clarifying of the direction on, on a scenario like that. and i think that we could certainly bolster the guidelines with that. you know, i do note that like under a1, we do right, on page 19, design new storefront systems and features based on physical or photographic evidence that references the type typical configuration. so it's we are cognizant that a lot of these things do need to be new, but we want to make sure that they're referential based back on the historic material. and that's generally the approach that the staff are

taking when evaluating these, these proposals. and then i, i guess i wonder if, if there are different scenarios where it would matter more like if you're looking at an individually landmark building versus a contributor to a district or, just a building in a conservation district that's not, you know, not listed otherwise. yeah, certainly, so, you know, for the example of the coatings, i would say that the standard is that they be provided with durable coatings and the guidance would be powder coated, anodized, or marine grade. sorry. that's how i would, you know, so that you have the, the standard which is

you must have a coating on this and it has to be durable to, you know, you can bracket it with the warranty or something like that. and then powder coated, anodized or marine grade so that the standard stands on its own. and then there's nuances to the guidance, and as far as storefronts, it is going to be a serious challenge. and people will, rebuff that, because there are many storefronts that we will not find original materials for, and people won't run those dyes, and it's going to be very difficult. so i think we have to look at the storefront standards carefully because it's going to be challenged. and the nuances are, you know, as commissioner wright and commissioner baldauf have expressed that, you know,

the regular person is not going to know that you know, secretary standards or wants it to match in this scenario, which is almost impossible in some instances. and then when you are building something new that it be differentiated but compatible, what does that mean, and i think you've done a tremendous job compiling what has been decades of, of materials and guidance into standards. and the mission is very good because as you said, we need standards. otherwise we cannot fight the battle of what is going to come to us from the state, you know, without having codified standards, which is what you're embarked on. and as far as louvers go, i think we

have to try to set the standard, but then make a note that you know, limitations on openings at historic facades and may require that you've not have a grill or have a grill or whatever it is. so there's things like that that need to be fine tuned, or else we'll have this back and forth where people are. okay, we have to put a grill on it. we'll make the opening bigger to get the free air that we need. so there has to be some sort of practical aspect to this. commissioner baldauf. so just to get to get to some sort of actionable plan here, it feels like the storefronts are an area that need some additional study because i feel like just going

on the louver question my in my mind's eye, what i'm seeing is you have a historic set of historic openings, and the choice is, do you just put a discreet louver at the very top before you do the storefront architecture and that then the storefront architecture can exist on its own in its totality, and not even try to engage the louver architecturally. that's a diagram that could be provided as an alternative approach, which has. i'm guessing, a little bit where you might be going with that. and i think, see, i have no i think that looking at the historic photos is supremely important, but we can't also create a false history. right. that's that's the secretary of interior standards. so i think we have to allow a pretty wide

interpretation of that historic understanding, if you can't fully restore that, then, as i say, i think you can argue that you can divide up in all glass and do and respect the historic history of the building without necessarily, you know, doing a metal system. and, and, but you. so i'm struggling because i think there's inevitably a judgment part of this. and we're saying we're trying to take judgment out of the equation. and i don't want to end up with a sort of a very, banal approach that we get because we set everybody down this only there's only this set of options, and we don't allow a wider set of options. and so i'm struggling

with how to do this, commissioner. right yeah, thank you. and this is going back to the coatings discussion. i would just maybe add like, fluoropolymer or other, durable, you know, coatings and of course, it depends if it's going on metal or, or wood. you wouldn't put those coatings necessarily on, on wood. but, but i'm in agreement with the comments that have been made. do i have a motion? oh oh, sorry. staff, rebecca salgado, planning staff. i just wanted to give a little bit of feedback to your comments, especially with storefronts, you know, i the guidelines that are in this, in

these design standards or these standards in the design standards right now, as i mentioned, came from earlier documents that we had used kind of unofficially, that had not been adopted. and the storefront standards have been pretty much the same since for at least the past decade. and, and storefronts are very difficult. planning staff have a hard time working with them because there are so many different conditions that exist, the standards do mention that buildings are considered on a case by case basis, which is something that gives us some flexibility. and that's really how we have treated, all of these scopes of work, signage also has a lot of variables that can come in, so all the concerns that you have brought up are concerns that staff has had and worked through as well, and we have been able to, treat storefronts with, degrees of flexibility using

these standards up to this point , you know, treating an individual article ten storefront that we have a lot of documentation for. so even if it doesn't exist anymore differently than an article 11 district property that we don't have a lot of documentation for, but is of a very typical, building type for that district. and we can kind of, estimate, well, what the storefront might have looked at, so i just wanted to put that out there. these aren't new, like much stricter standards than staff has already been working with, and i believe that we would still be able to have a lot of flexibility, even though these standards are intended to narrow things down, and it's just very difficult to have, strict standards for storefronts. so. and i apologize, i, you know, read them. but then it's gone out of my memory. you do have in there

for each of these standards that it's case by case. i think i'd have to look again. i think it's toward the beginning of the document, but we could. yeah, that makes sense. possibly make that at the beginning. yeah. and that gives that still gives, the ability to, have these stand as standards while doing it case by case. okay so that that was my worry with, you know, the state laws and stuff like that, that, that would, you know, not take in guide guidelines, but they, they want us to have some stated standards. but you are looking at them case by case. yeah. i mean we have to look at each building case by case. you know, we can't provide the same dimensions or materials or, in any of these things for, for all

of the buildings that, you know, thousands of buildings. right, yeah. so. okay. thank you. commissioner baldauf, did you have another comment? no. okay, is there a motion, motion to approve with, the conditions that have been stated? i don't i can't rattle them all off, but. well, if you can't, neither can i. i've got the one that was suggested regarding the, storefront and historic profile. modern interpretation. were there others? there was a lot of deliberation. i'm not sure what you all wanted to include, what was not agreed upon, i think there, i would suspect that the right way to do this was, would be that we would approve and then we would get back the storefront section in particular. and so maybe we approve everything, but the storefront section and say we'd like to see that back. i don't

know, it feels like that's the area where there was the most commissioners, if i can recommend, maybe if you're inclined to approve, maybe dictate that the staff come back in three months and then during that time we can then, reach out to you individually and gather your comments on the specific sections. that way we have something to base our review on for future. so my motion is to approve, as drafted, and that staff come back in three months, with any updates. based on, discussions or notes and review of the discussions within this hearing. second. very good. commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the historic context statement with direction to staff, and the

anticipated return in three months, to amend. accept it. it's not a context statement. excuse me. what is it? it's a design. the conservation district. historic design guidelines. design standards. excuse me. thank you. on that motion, commissioner baldauf, i, commissioner campbell. yes. commissioner. vergara. yes. commissioner. wright. yes and commission chair. warren. yes. thank you. so move. commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. item six, case number 2023. hyphen 005172 koa at 154 through 156 liberty street. a certificate of appropriateness. good afternoon, commissioners charles hentschel, department preservation staff. this item on your agenda is for a certificate of appropriateness , within an article ten landmark

district, the liberty hill historic district, the proposal before you today is to insert a garage entry containing a wood paneled door, a wood panel roll up door, stamped concrete driveway, return walls to match existing, combine the two front residential residential entries into one larger, wider residential entry consisting of wood door and wood transom window, replacement of the front. historic wood windows with wood double hung windows to match, and a third floor vertical addition set back 15ft from the face of the building and approximately 27ft from the front property line and at the rear, one story, ground floor, horizontal addition, this is a depth of approximately ten feet, and rear fenestration alteration

missions and, rear decks as part of that one story rear horizontal addition and the third floor, vertical addition, after publication of the packet, the department did receive public comment related to the project, and it was regarding the poster not being installed, the department did have the architect to reinstall the poster when we were notified. i believe we received three comments related to the poster, the department, finds that the proposed scope is consistent with the secretary of the interior, standards of rehabilitation and article ten of the planning code, and therefore recommends approval. and today we have the architect here on behalf of the property owner, suhail shatara. and if the commission has any more questions for myself or for the architect, we'll be here.

project sponsor. you have five minutes. good afternoon. commissioners, this project is, a building that used to be a pair of flats. it was, it's pretty much intact, it went in the 50s. it was, in the 50s. it changed. i think, from a pair of flats originally, to, single family home. they opened the walls on the interior and, and you can see the two front doors there and the opening between the two front doors. they took out they took out the kitchen up on the upper level. it has, so what we're doing is we're proposing an addition, which is part, you know, which actually goes into the attic and, lowers

the existing ceiling height. since the ceiling height is, is fairly high, so this is i'm just showing, showing you the roof lines to see what the conditions are. so these are more conditions. that's the back roof roofline. and then that's current back of the house right now. so, there's a context of photographs for the context of the, the building. and it's adjacent to dolores park, you can see dolores park on. sorry to the left. and what we are proposing is we're proposing the addition, which is, above the

third floor, but it's nestled down into the existing ceiling, about a foot and a half to two feet, so the addition above the ridge line is about four feet. that is, the cross section. those are the areas highlighted that are going to be added, you can see the original ridge line and then the addition above the original ridge line in the back. that's at one story addition addition. there's an existing deck back there, it's a smaller deck than what we have originally. we had a deeper addition, but then when the new legislation for the setbacks came out, we pulled it back about another foot and a half. at the front, we're proposing the garage door and reworking the front door. the original,

the original front doors are two doors. and the two doors are fairly narrow in size, so we're taking similar proportions, similar style, maintaining the larger door. so we have a vestibule. when you go in, we're restoring the two flats. we did have an approval for, rooms down. so we do have rooms down in order to make that area more usable, we've added that small portion at the back that one story portion, this is a proposed back of the building. the original back of the building. i'm not sure. maybe the text hides it. but there is a small deck back there that would be the side elevation

existing and proposed. you can move the microphone towards the. so we can hear you more consistently. i keep fading in and out. so that's the existing roof line. and that's the addition on the side. and then in the back we're looking at the rear addition would be this much, basically to the building. the existing building jogs and then that's a new deck at the, level, the first level, which is the level above the basement, up on top, we will have, this area as a new area with the deck at the back, by removing the pitched roof structure and creating a deck at that point. so that's the proposal we're proposing. as for the poster and what happened, we did put the poster up. i put four screws in

the poster. it was pre laminated . i went and replaced the poster yesterday at the request of planning. when i went there, the original screws were taken off, so it was actually deliberate. thank you, thank you. with that, commissioners, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. okay hello, first, let me start off by saying how disappointed i am with the process of this hearing, as it should have been postponed due to violating planning code section 311 neighborhood notification. i don't know who removed that sign, but it was removed after day one and i have photos a couple of weeks i've been trying to call. i called last week. none of my neighbors were aware. i've been trying to reach out. we did not find out until yesterday. did not repost the sign till 3:00 yesterday before written comment can even be done. i had to rearrange my whole schedule to be here. anyway, i've lived next door to

156 150 for liberty for 18 years. i knew virginia mehegan, who lived at that address for 89 years until she broke her hip and was moved to hospice, where she died in 2018. she loved that house. she lived there with her parents, william and caroline, michigan, older brother william, who also lived in the house until he passed, and her twin sister, sister mary paul, whom she left the property to the convent and where her sister lived. the duplex was built in 1871, and was one of the only one of its kind in the neighborhood. it's also one of only 51 residents of historic significance on two blocks of liberty street. it was called the patrick broderick house for its architect. this enclave is a capsule of middle class housing in san francisco between 1867 and 1911, and is of italian style. such a range of intact houses in a small area is very unusual. the street is a part of

many walking tours. because of this my main opposition is to the garage addition. there was were clearly no garages in 1871, and i feel it will take away from the historical value and the beauty of this project, not to mention it causes a safety issue for pedestrians. considering the amount of foot traffic on this street, one garage for a duplex does not make sense and is not necessary considering it is one block to muni, 1.5 blocks from the valencia bike corridor and 0.8 miles to the 24th and 16th 16th street bart stations. it only takes away the esthetic and historical value and raises questions of safety. i also have concerns of raising the height of this building, as it will take away from the medium sized style that was prevalent during this period. i also fear it blocking significant amounts amount of light from the surrounding buildings. i really hope you take these things into consideration as it is very sad

to see san francisco history sold to the highest bidder. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. woody labounty from san francisco heritage, internally we looked at these plans quite a bit and had a lot of discussion about them, and where we really landed on what was most concerning were the entry doors, actually. and i guess what we have a question. this is an 1871 building. there aren't many of these. this block is incredibly significant, and we i tried to get a really closer look at the doors. and i'm not sure if they're actually contemporaneous with the origins of the building, and i don't know if any research has been done about whether this building started as two flats or was turned into two flats, but, but i'd love to see what the front

proposed front door would be. and if there's any way to at least salvage one of those entry doors, so i guess what i'd say is we're a little torn on this project. there's so many. there are garages on that street that have been put in in some of these early buildings, but i feel like we didn't really have the details in the plans for us to make really a judgment one way or the other. but mostly we were concerned about the doors. ma'am, ma'am, you've already spoken. okay okay. last call for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. commissioners, can i ask, if we gave notification you. commissioner, you just read my mind. i just wanted to provide some insight to the commission on how we handle, errors or what might be perceived errors. so whenever, it is common, since we

have a posting requirement for public hearings under planning code section 333, that an owner has to post a poster on their site with invisibility, if the poster if we are notified that that the applicant or it has been removed since then, we immediately require the applicant to post it. so i might ask charles to come up and put on. for the record, when you were notified that the poster was not present, and when you know when you outreach to the applicant, yes, i received, multiple inquiries, the day before the hearing and i forwarded those inquiries to the sponsor, or at least those concerns that the poster had to be reinstalled. and i did discuss it with, our manager, rich sucrée. so it was the day before yesterday. it was yesterday that this this was

notified to you. and how did how did anyone know to notify you about a missing poster that they needed to be hearing, my understanding is people have heard from their neighbors that there is going to be a hearing, but i, you know, i didn't ask for. keep in mind that we also send a mail notice out to all property owners and occupants within 150ft of the site. that's what i understood. yeah. so where are we with with that? so we conclude that there were no errors in the notification so that the notice was undertaken appropriately, by the department, and that the sponsor followed up accordingly from when they were notified that the poster was removed, i see okay, commissioners, do you have any comments? i have a few comments,

but i'll ask commissioner. right. okay. all right, so what on the drawings, it says as approved, is that existing or is there a project that's going on? charles, department preservation staff there is, current construction. is that. yeah so, sometimes the department provides three, separations of the plans existing, approved, and proposed, for clarity, i had just asked the architect to provide these two, but the as approved, is what is being constructed right now. and can you remind me when the as approved was approved, the building permit. i don't have

that date in front of me, but if you give me a few seconds, i can i can pull it up and permit tracking system. or when it was in front of hpc, there was no previous, entitlement before the hpc. there has been like, administrative certificate of appropriateness is that were approved, particularly for the side property line windows. but there were no like entitlements that were triggered to come before the. so the changes that they've made have, have now triggered them to come before the hpc. okay, so, i, you know, i in the description that you provided, mr. ansel was you you said that historic windows on the main facade were to be replaced in kind, but i saw on the drawings that they were to remain, let's take a look. so

for sheet a, 2.0, if we look at the right hand north elevation, there is replace existing wood windows with og lugs, and if we look at the proposed at well there's also additional notations to replace, i'm only going to be focused on the front facade on the street. so can you tell me because i remember seeing a bubble and a note that said existing to be retained, on the package, maybe in previous like, drawing revisions, well, in the package we received, i saw a facade that had a bubble around it. okay, that said, the existing windows are to be are to remain. okay, that may have been, inaccurate or or a late,

and so revision was there, was there record of the windows being in such disrepair that they needed to be completely replaced in kind? no. like, only only photos. not not like a inspection in, i guess i would say that, you know, knowing history and this is what the main facade faces. which direction? please remind me, the main facade is the south, south south south. yeah, yes. so, yeah, there's potential that they may be deteriorated because the south does get high exposure . but i think we have to verify that this is the case because there's you know, other ways to mitigate, you know, dry rot,

that we can use consolidant epoxy things that can allow these windows to stay. the reason i say that is that historic windows from from, 1870, for sure are made of old growth wood, and they are much more stable than the wood that we would use today, unless, of course, you're using sapele, which is a highly dense wood that, that can be used and can be stable. but i, i would imagine that, you know, that this could be reclaimed in a way that we can reuse these windows. okay, and, and so i would ask for verification of that. may i suggest a condition of approval for a, for a conditions assessment? and i don't know if the architect would like to add anything, to that. well i, i don't think, i think your

condition is, is a good idea. okay. and then the next thing i wanted to ask about was the garage entrance, i would rather see a garage entrance. have a less prominent appearance, than something that has paneling on it. that seems to indicate that we're, you know, adding something decorative, but something that recedes, rather than having something that's obvious and maybe even that something, you know, correspond with the visual of that foundation iron, that it just you know, it becomes part of part of that, the. i didn't see

in the package, but i saw today more photos of what the existing stairs look like. so i'm glad that we were able to see those pictures, it is going to look dramatically different than what it looks like in the pictures. i think we would have benefited from seeing the existing condition and what it is today, because the existing condition is the historical condition. so i, i sort of, you know, would like to actually see that so that actual comparison can be made. i wasn't able to go on google street view to see anything because it's blurred, and not for the just for this project for the next project as well. the double doors. i, i also had, considered the double doors whether they could remain the way they are at the, at the

very worst case, having the historic or existing doors that are there be paired so that they are used as double doors, something like that. but i am in preference of keeping the doors the way they are, as a memorial of the history of that building. the, and maybe i'm getting mixed up with my projects here, but, let's see the foundation, i believe, is made out of brick. correct, and i'm just wondering whether, they can keep that brick. on the on the two facades, and then reinforce the rear of it. i've done that before on historic 1870s building. so granted, for that

project, i only was excavating two feet, whereas this is more excavation, i believe. right. so just so i understand, would that look like if they were doing foundation work, there would still be brick lined perimeter around the. that's right. so i would still see the brick on the outside. nothing would change on the outside and on the inside it would be reinforced. can we have, one of the images up so that i'm not getting confused with the other project? i'd like to see the drawing of the overhead, please. could i see the section drawing as well ?

or maybe the front facade is fine. the proposed front facade would help me. okay so that's not the proposed. thank you. okay right. okay. yes. yeah. so i do remember that, that garage door being sort of, in front of me as, as it's a little bit obvious, and the foundation, i

think you had mentioned doing, stamped stucco, but if we can retain the original brick, that would be great. on at least the, on the two sides that we can see it. so that's the retaining wall, not the foundation. correct. about the brick. i need to speak into the microphone. i'm sorry, so the bay sits on framing, and there's a belt course at the bottom of the framing with the wood trim and below that is a foundation that picks up that framing that sits on the soil of the planter. okay. the planter is, a concrete wall that's stamped. and before that, in the 1880s or prior, i think, i had an original photograph, and i'm sorry i

couldn't find it on the way here , but it used to be a wooden retaining wall with wooden balustrade at the front of this building. i can find that and hopefully send it to the planners so they can understand the original. so so in order for us to float the bay, it would float by its original framing. and then everything below that would come out in order for us to open up the opening behind the bay to, to access, the garage. okay and we wouldn't touch the bay as it is with the trim work at the base as it is, we would keep that intact, except where the garage door is going. correct. okay, i'll have the other commissioners provide their comments. commissioner. right. thank you, so i also know, have some comments and

questions. missions. i think there's a real need to understand. and, the necessity of the window replacement, i think as commissioner nageswaran mentioned, there's no condition assessment, it's not totally understood, what the reason is for replacing them, and the photos in the packet aren't even very clear, but i do think that i can tell from the photos in the packet that the windows do not currently have ogee lugs. and so i'm wondering why we're proposing replacement windows in kind that will have ogee lugs. the actual windows do have ogee likes on the street face on the,

on the front facade, there ogee legs. the windows have deteriorated somewhat. they're single pane. some of the joints of the wood frame of the windows coming apart. so we have the, the window. do you have any other photos, that you were flashing up before? that might be more detailed than the ones that we have in the packet? thank you. so i did visit the site. i don't believe all the windows have og lugs. i just want to state that. okay, because i think, it's common belief that all historic windows had og lugs and, when in fact all historic windows did not have og lugs and i, i've noticed it, in practice, that victorian buildings often did not, have og lugs, so i don't want to, get

into any kind of false historicizing, and i don't think that we should be replacing the windows if there's not a need to replace them, so i'm i'm opposed to the window replacement, unless it's, made very clear that that needs to happen in, as commissioner nageswaran was mentioning, the old growth wood and, performance of historic windows when well maintained. you know, can last much longer than, than, some of the other contemporary replacements, i also had a hard time finding in the packet, you know, it the how how, how much the building is lifting is. i'm sorry, how much the building is raising to accommodate the garage or you're just excavating? no, we're just

excavating below. okay. and we actually get the clearance we need, since the planter is about 2 to 3ft above the sidewalk. okay. and as we slope down, we're actually clearing the underside framing of the bay. okay. thank you. thanks for that clarification, and so i also agree with commissioner nageswaran that, you know, this is going to look very different, and, you know, these houses on these on these especially these blocks that have that are kind of these large banks and tracts of, of, that have a consistent character, it's true that several of them have allowed for garages, but, you know, i think this this is a good example of one that hasn't. and i'm also opposed to the addition of the

excavation of the front yard for , a garage, i like commissioner warren's suggestion, if there's a way to, somehow retain the entry doors as they are, maybe fix one or, you know, i don't know, but, you know, most of my concerns and questions about what's proposed and are the items that are impacting the street facade, i don't have really a lot of questions about the additions or changes that are not impacting the street facade. commissioner campbell. i guess i'm unclear about the history of the front door because the way it was presented by the architect was that it was originally. what i thought i heard was it was originally a single door, then two doors, and now we're going back to one. or

it was originally two. the property was originally constructed as two units. i know the architect had stated at some point it may have been combined into a single unit. i see. i think that's where i got confused. historically constructed as two units and it's presently two units, and those doors are original, we believe the doors should be original. okay the original photograph showed those doors. okay. and from the 50s till the present, it was used as single family dwelling. okay. and then i went to the zoning administrator to check the history and he maintained the two unit aspect of the building. so we're going to retain the two units. okay and the garage just real quick. the garage has two parking spaces, so it helps alleviate impact on the street as opposed to a single parking space. sorry. did you say you're retaining the two units or the two doors? the two units? the doors are about 31in in width or

a little less. so you're going to have an upper story that's one unit and a lower story that's another unit. the upper story will, as you come in from the front door, we have the lower story on that level, and it goes down to the basement level. and on the upper unit. so you enter a vestibule, there'll be a door for the lower unit and as you go up the stairs, there'll be a door for the upper unit. okay. so what you're proposing is one door and then two doors inside. correct. so that we can maintain the two units with the addition, the upper unit gets additional area. yeah. well, now that i know that there's two units, i'm still like, why not have them at the facade, we don't have the two doors at the facade. and again, we don't have the width to, you know, for appliances and furniture to come through those doors. so it's a little bit more

gymnastics. that's why we're trying to get a wider door, keep the same style of door and do it. do a single door. the building was constructed originally as a two unit building. i agree, the doors are you know, were the intent, yet they're very narrow for it just it's practical use, commissioner campbell, my other question is about the window replacement. and maybe this is just a general question, but when we say we're replacing the double hung windows, i assume that means it includes the segment head, that kind of arched portion of the window. i ask only because i've recently seen a few projects in my neighborhood that didn't. that kind of didn't include that they were historic, so i just want to make sure that includes the segment. i'm sorry, that's correct. perfect. thank you. so the window and door shop that do a very good work or there used to be fourth street woodworks or ocean sash. yes. they actually

build doors with arch windows with arches with ogee legs that are true to the original. they have the original profiles and everything. and that's and so the windows are mostly for energy value. okay. replacement, you know, to repair some of those windows because, we can repair them, but we're going to get a single, pane as opposed to a double pane. we can match the original style but still get a thermally, more thermal window than the existing windows. yeah, i just want to make one comment about that. historic buildings are exempt from the energy standards, no, i'm i'm aware of that. but if we could get a better window, with regards to energy and can replicate the original window, and that's what these shops actually do, they, we can select a better grade. they use, quality kiln dried for

and then we can upgrade it to either some other form of wood that might be denser. i don't want to go to mahogany. these are going to be paint grade. so i'd rather go to some other species, but their, their fur is very stable. commissioner baldauf, thank you. for me, the door front doors is the overriding issue. i think that, this is a very unique house as a two unit house, and it signaled its role in that way through having two narrow front doors. the proportion of the doors is everything in my mind, and i, i'm concerned about your garage because i don't see any blend or anything. and i'm trusting

you're going to figure out how to make that garage work. and i accept in a way, a concession to modernity in allowing for a garage. but i don't think you can take the single most character defining feature of this house away in the front doors. i could imagine a solution where maybe you take the middle mullion between the doors and you attach it to one of the doors, but i think for me you have to find a way to not make it read like a single family house with a single front door, because now you're then you're undermining its historic presence on the street. and so, i don't know, for me, i can quibble with the garage door. there are things i can be worried about, but the thing that i'm just like will not get over is the front doors. can i make a suggestion, mr. chair? unless he's addressing you, i'm like, please take a seat. i'm

curious. before i hear from you, i just i'm just trying to communicate where i am. to my fellow commissioners. i'm aligned with commissioner baldauf as well. i am too, yeah. i think we've set a precedent already for the in this district, for garages, i think if it's done discreetly, maybe we revisit the paneling, but i think the doors, we have two units still, so maybe we stick with the original two doors. that's my $0.02. any other commissioner comments? do i have a motion? i move approval of the project with the condition that the two historic front doors remain as part of the design, and that the garage door is

de-emphasized in its, trim statement to be more consistent with the horizontal, wood construction of the wall. commissioner baldauf, would you like to also address the windows and a conditions assessment? the i the i think that the applicant needs to provide a conditions report for the windows to show that replacement is, in fact, necessary. okay i second the motion. can can i ask a question as a point of clarification on, commissioner baldauf, are you, trusting that, d that the language de-emphasis of the garage door is adequate? or is it something that, that we would be updated, on, by the applicant

or by the staff? i think we understand. and where the commission is going in terms of the design. it basically is to not pursue the paneled garage door that they have proposed and to do a simpler garage door that basically mimics or not mimics, but like riffs off of the wood paneling. that's currently there. charles, are you clear? very good. commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve, with conditions as amended, to include, that the project retain the two historic front doors, with the garage doors consistent with the horizontal wood paneling, and for a conditions report for the window replacement to deem whether or not the window replacement is necessary. on that motion, commissioner baldauf i. commissioner campbell. yes. commissioner. vergara. yes. commissioner wright. yes. commission chair. warren yes. so

move. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5 to 0, placing us on item seven for case number 2023. hyphen 0082002 coa for the property at 1027 hayes street. this is a certificate of appropriateness. good afternoon, commissioners. manushi mathur, planning department staff. the project before you is a request for certificate of appropriateness for the property at 1027 hayes street, which is a contributor to the article ten alamo square landmark historic district. the subject building is a queen anne style, two story, three unit building and was built in the year 1900. this wood frame building has a wood siding exterior with an open front gable and asymmetrical facade with spindlework prominent octagonal windows, and a pedimented porch. the proposed

project involves excavation to create two new stories below grade and four scopes visible from the public right of way. first, the addition of the sidewalk entry would door at the retaining wall in the front. at the subbasement level. second, replacement of the front door at the basement level with a wood door matching the existing door to access the proposed to new below grade stories. third, the replacement of the brick foundation wall in the front with a concrete foundation wall with painted brick texture, applied in stucco for addition of four wood windows with integral ogs on the east elevation. the proposed scopes respect the property's architectural significance and the new additions are minimal in design. differentiate but compatible with the historic building which the department finds to be consistent with the standards and article ten.

following the publication of the packets, the department has and received any inquiries from the public, the department finds the. the proposed scopes to be consistent with the secretary of interior standards and article ten of the planning code, and therefore recommends approval with the following condition first, prior to the issuance of the first construction document, the. the project sponsor shall submit a sample showing the painted brick texture and stucco proposed on the new concrete foundation wall in the front and second, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the project sponsor shall confirm the design of the side entry door proposed on the subbasement level at the retaining wall. the project sponsor is present and has prepared a short presentation. i am available for any questions. and this is. this concludes my presentation. thank you. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. good afternoon

commissioners. my name is gregory boschee. i'm the architect of record for the project. i'm just going to read a prepared statement, there are a few concerns regarding this project, but the primary one is the proposal is the addition of the subbasement, subbasement, sidewalk, entrance door, this serves multiple purposes that improve the functionality and the long time enjoyment of this property, which is owned by a growing family who intends to make this their forever home, the easier accessibility from the sidewalk level solves several critical problems. the property is wonderfully located in the central city, and the owners and residents enjoy the that the city is readily accessible by foot and bicycle. however there and this is their primary mode of transportation, this entry door would provide convenient bike and stroller storage, which is currently very

difficult to access and navigate with multiple staircases from sidewalk by connecting, the elevator and elevator at the interior. this also allows for multi-generational living for the eventual aging in place. the owners are interested in making the property more accessible to aging parents, and also have options to have elderly family members reside in their home, as well as, to be able to continue living here as they age themselves, regarding other issues, we understand the historic nature of the property, are enthusiastic about the value of preserving its characteristic characteristic features, the foundation, will serve to the foundation replacement will serve to ensure that the building can better withstand potential seismic activity and ensure its life safety for its residents, this reinforced

concrete foundation will receive a brick texture, to relate to the existing conditions of which a sample will be provided per the commission's request, the new windows, the that provide light and air to the new basement level will match the existing material, texture, color, finish and workmanship, the existing windows are to be rehabilitated and repaired. per the secretary of interior standards in general, this intervention aims to simplify and make compatible to blend in gracefully and not detract from the character of this exemplary san francisco victorian, we have the homeowner here, and we're present to answer any questions. thank you very much. thank you. with that, we should open up public comment if there is any any member of the public wishing to speak, now is your

opportunity to do so. please come forward seeing none. public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. i, i will start some comments, so, i had sort of a confusion between the previous project and this one as well, but i also felt like, you know, the brick foundation at the facade front facade on the street, if we could retain the brick, on the bottom. and i say that because i noticed that it wasn't originally painted. so now if we replace it, we're putting concrete stamped and it's painted, so i would i would love to see either that they reinforce that concrete foundation or salvage the brick and reconstruct it in front of that foundation, and as i've

said, i've, i've done that before on a historic building, and it is possible, but i'm open to comments on that, and i was glad to see i think this is the one that i saw that you were, retaining the windows, which i, i appreciate, there were two octagonal windows that were mentioned, and i, i don't know where exactly they were, and i, i'm sorry, i, i didn't look closely to see where that was, so if someone could point that out to me, that would be helpful. are you talking about the shape or just on a bay? an octagonal bay. sorry, could you use the mic? oh, i'm not sure if you're referring to the actual shape of the window as an octagon, or there was a mention either in the case report or in

the drawings of two octagonal windows. yes. let me that we're going to be replaced, those are in the rear in the what? in the those are in the rear. oh, in the rear. yeah. in the rear. yeah. got it. okay. so let me quickly. so i can do a short illness. those windows this these are what we are talking about. yeah i'm i believe you're regarding a bay a bay window, but they're not. actually, we might need the overhead again. so you need to speak in the microphone. you can pull it over to you pull the microphone to you. so i believe the windows were referring to an octagonal bay that they're not actually octagonal. they're just rectangular. i was like, okay, so i didn't find those. okay. so i have some comments. i'd love to hear what my other fellow commissioners think about them.

adding conjectural features. there was a couple of things, windows with lugs where they didn't exist that were adding windows, and we're adding them with lugs, i don't know how i feel about that. and then, just be mindful of the utilities. we know that you've neatly shown it in one location, but pga has sometimes other ideas. so please wrestle them, to make sure that this doesn't come back to us. you know, with a, with a yard full of equipment, that is visible, and then how i wanted to understand how water was being drained from the areas that are below grade, any walkways and things like that. the, the stairwell where you have the, underneath the stair. i think that's all covered. but

if there's any other areas that where water would get in under the building, and then the door that's at the front facade that goes to the basement unit, it's right at the front facade where there used to be a wall. and i'm, i'm, i just knowing how things deteriorate that door is going to get, you know, just hit with rain, whatever it is. and water get pushed in underneath that door. so i'm just wondering whether that should be recessed out, and then i just want to make sure our, you know, those are the things that i have in mind. so i'd like to hear what other commissioners have to say. commissioner campbell, i also was very concerned about the painted brick texture and stucco sounds like planning was as well. so, yeah, if we could do something more authentic, i think that would be preferred, i

also don't love the idea of the new door. actually, i think it. i wonder if the project sponsor considered an opening because it looks like there are. it creates a niche that then there's another set of doors that swing into the new, unit below, had you considered a gate, that would be more in keeping with some of the vocabulary of the buildings along the street there that also have our wrought iron gate that then leads into a recessed area or stairs, just to provide a little bit of, consistency and relief. there's always just something, troublesome about a door that leads right onto the sidewalk. so just curious, as the sponsor considered a gate that then led you into the niche, knowing that you've got doors that are actually your could be weather barrier into the space? yes,

please, there is a concern on the street, with uses of alcove niches. you know, by people that are possibly living on the street in that area. so that was a concern by recessing it too significantly. it actually would incur more, utilization of that area for, you know, uses that we and, the homeowners actually experienced it, not just on the street, but people coming up into her. onto the porch area. and so it's actually a fairly big concern for them in this area, would a wrought iron gate of some sort, though, we would have to discuss that, we don't know of any other situations where there's a similar condition along the street or in that direct area for leading directly into a unit, only into,

you know, areas where there's maybe a stairway behind. yeah. is there anything else that, no, those were all my questions. thank you. would you like me to respond to, the other questions, regarding the water drainage, we are planning on having, area drains at the at the exposed areas in the back where where water would get trapped, you know, that's going to be a part of the construction where we're going to have new a new lateral, for the for the sewer. so that will definitely be something that'll be, developed. and the other one was, oh, well, about the door. and it's really the same, same issue. i think we're open to, some slight recess and extend that that issue, we have concerns about recessing it too

much because of, you know, obvious concerns. so i, you know, separate from what commissioner campbell had said, which is also an idea, i was just thinking, not having it right at the front, that there's some protection for that door to just be inset a little bit, just like any other door would have, i, i had thought about, you know, the gate idea and i don't know enough about that context from what was provided in the packet to know what else is going on in that district, so it's not clear to me in that sense. sure, i would say that in our opinion, it would maybe call out that that opening, more than it would just be by having a door and we were trying to maintain a door that was appropriate, but not or, but not

really calling attention to itself too much in that maybe the recess is a is a nice relief , right. the slight just a little. yeah. not not enough. that is occupiable in any way. but i know you probably have some tight door swing conditions there. we're talking about the entry two three inches. yeah. not talking about five feet. yeah, yeah. okay, commissioner. right. thank you. yeah. i would just add, i guess echo the comments about the painted brick texture and i would support, a reinstallation of the salvaged brick over, over top of a concrete wall, that needs to be, you know, if it needs to be, construct or application of the brick. back in its original location, over concrete. and i

find myself continuing to kind of come back to this door, and it it just feels a little bit awkward. i don't totally know why. maybe it's because it's right at the street. maybe it's because, you know, when we're looking at, kind of the existing configuration and you have kind of that plain of the wall, that will be interrupted, maybe it's a little bit also like just the changing. i know i understand what you're trying to do and keeping the panels above, but, you know, it really kind of changes the proportion. and so i don't know if there's a way to, i mean, short of, like, eliminating the door, minimizing, like, the perimeter trim of the doorway so that the panels can feel a little taller than they are, you know, a

little bit more vertical than than horizontal. i'm not. i don't know, i'm just kind of throwing some some comments out there. and based on the way this feels, i don't think there's a great photo of, the site wall. is there. for some reason, i thought i had seen one, but i'm not. can we go to the overhead? oh, yeah. that one. not to raise that. raise the. but there's not a there's not like a photo that's like kind of an overall shot of the property. right. you can't you can't get a the kind of the full context in a photo

view, this is just kind of a detail shot of this one area, kind of without its context, but . i don't know, it's a little. would it be okay if we read this? oh, it's too much. oh, you want to shoot? okay oh, there we go. they have it on, on the screen. now, this. oh. thank you . i was going to say commissioners. and if you have your computers open, if you go to bing, you can actually see the full street frontage. oh yeah. the blurry is only a google thing to. so really, i guess it just needs to, i don't know, maybe maybe it's just a change in the panel, proportion above it feels odd to me, but if there's a way to, eliminate such a wide casing, maybe that is a

benefit. it. and the door feels less prominent, and the. could i make a request or a suggestion, please, if you look at the elevation that we've drawn on the, the door is drawn with a single panel and that was an effort to, you know, keep it as back ground as possible. which which sheet is that? please do you know? 3.3.2. we could create two vertical panels if that's a big concern of yours, of having more of a vertical proportion to the overall, composition, we could create two inset panels on that door and have a third middle rail or, style that goes vertically. that way it would feel much more vertical and maybe more in keeping with what the original, proportions were.

to clarify, i'm talking about the original panels that are above the door, they, they, they kind of get really shortened, by insertion of the door. and so they feel more horizontal, with, but in the, the rendering that you have included, you know, i'm , you know, and i realize it's just kind of an overlay rendering, if kind of change in the proportion of the casing would allow for like a little bit more of, less, less removal of the panels than. i understand what you mean. we could we could certainly try that. we could probably gain a couple of inches , but the door is not. it's kind of a minimum height door right now. yeah. and so we can't really. i know the door can't get shorter. you know, or probably at least, so. and we

can certainly play with the, with the casing, with the, the trim, work around the door and maybe gain a couple of inches, but i think that's about all we, we could because there's a minimum amount that's going to have to remain around the sides. and we were trying to stay true to some of the dimensions that actually exist in the trim work, that's existing so that we'd be in at the existing upper part of the building, no, i mean, as far as the panelized, sections around the, around this trim around this would work. we were trying to maintain some similar proportions to that, around the door and the casing of that door. so i think i understand, could you go back to that elevation? yeah. yeah. commissioners, i'm looking at it right now relative to the

current design and what is currently there, which we have a good a couple of good photos of if you look at it, the top of the door basically hits the bottom half of that. the part of the surround that's kind of the railing that's there. and i see that they basically have clipped . so you're basically wanting to get more of that panel showing. yeah i think it would allow for a little bit more, some retention of a little bit more of the panels that are above the door. so, so are you thinking of maybe trying to, have the door be a more true expression of, like, an insertion into the current form that's there. and that would resolve some of this, except the door would be too short. yeah. i think at least at the head of the door, but i, i'm interested in what, the my fellow commissioners, have to say, commissioner baldauf. i

think it's really interesting that we're discussing this house after the last house, because i think it we're confronting how we densify san francisco and occupy basement space and here we have an opportunity where we don't have a garage being proposed, but we are. this is a fairly dramatic excavation, being proposed. and i have a couple of questions that are really not historic questions, but their architecture questions, which is one, is the one of the bedrooms. i don't know how you're getting the escape window into it on the side, and i'm assuming you've figured that out, but it felt like the bedroom was mostly below grade and you just have to deal with that. but the, the thing that i'm wondering is, how

are you building this? because to do this amount of excavation, i would think the logical way is that this entire stair is going to have to get deconstructed and you have to dig this out somehow and, and i'm not actually horrified by that, because i'm guessing the staircase may not even be of the exact date of the house. i maybe it is, but but i think that you should do a design of this whole front that solves all your problems. and i think that what you're hearing is we're like, you know, okay, what about this? what about this little detail and i'm just questioning how you're building it. so maybe you can tell us that, because if you're going to hand dig it from the inside. but i just would think that you have to demolish the stair and go in with a cat, i respond. the,

construction engineer has actually looked at this and the intention is to demolish that section of the front retaining wall out to the edges of where that, where that trim work is shown. and that would be enough for it to get a cat in there. it's basically digging a tunnel and then extracting everything from there. it's not an easy it's certainly not an easy way to do it. but given the fact that we were asked to try to, achieve this and maintain the stair as much as possible, that was, that's what we resolved to do, there's actually pictures of the, of the front of this house that our homeowner has, has found recently that show there is a stair there, but it's it doesn't have that original guardrail there. the guardrail

was added at some point in time. we don't know when exactly. yeah. between 1983 and 1980, all of that information would be helpful to have ahead of time because none of this matters if we don't know what the history of this is. so it it's a huge thing for us to know what the history is and know what you're changing in that history. if that was 1985, we need to know that, we can't walk into this thinking that it's, you know, all historic. yeah. and we weren't we weren't aware of some of those things either until recently. so i, i'm inclined to have this come back to us for architectural review committee, and have some of this background information before we make a decision on it. before you,

before you, have the motion, could i just address also the brick? because we just spoke to the homeowner as well, i think that's fine with us as far as trying to maintain the, or it would actually not be possible to maintain the existing, brick foundation in the current location. it had to be disassembled, because of just the way the amount of excavation that's going to be done. but we could try to, either, rehabilitate the existing brick and replace it in a veneer, installation or we could try to find a brick that would be, you know, a veneer brick that we could apply. the. i just say that as because you never know when you take away an existing brick, whether it's going to be in any shape to actually maintain. we don't know what's

going to happen when we actually take that away. and so that's what our concern would be, as far as committing to use, reusing the same brick. that's that's why i. yeah i understand what you're saying. sometimes the foundation brick is, is not as sturdy as as, would be like a face to face brick that's usually exposed. you know, putting that aside, do i have a motion? i move to send this to architectural review committee. is that the proper terme, with as much historic background information as you possibly can come up with, and, and i and i think the building strategy is actually really important because i think it has to be realistic in my mind. and so to come with some understanding,

because it makes me nervous that a whole project is dependent on digging a bobcat wide tunnel through a i've just worry that that's maybe magical thinking. and i can i respond to that because we've actually i'm sorry. so my motion is, design review committee, with as much background information as possible. second. though commissioners right now, your next scheduled architectural review committee isn't until july, does the project sponsor have a sense of how long it would take you to gather the information requested, as far as the information that you're requesting, really the only thing different is we have one photograph that we've that we've found from, so you have no permit record, and you cannot

verify any of this is historic, not for that. so, commissioners, yeah, i would ask the planner to get that information. this is i mean, it's getting to be really ridiculous that we don't have the historical background on this, so we can get the building permit records from dba for sure. yeah. and summarize them. i don't want to go through them. could i could i ask a question? sorry. so, how soon would you like to schedule the architectural review committee hearing, you know, we can do it the next, at the next hearing if that's enough time for them to gather the permit, record and verify what's historic and what's not on the. very good, then we're looking at april 17th for the architectural review committee hearing. the reason i'm asking is instead of re noticing the entire thing, we're looking for a specific date to

have this come back here. correct. so once we get the architecture review committee hearing date, then we could potentially schedule this for may 1st. right? correct. so we're going to continue this matter to may 1st to allow for the architectural review committee to consider it on april 17th. as long as the planning department planning staff is able to do that in that time. okay commissioner baldauf, is that your motion? i yes. i'm sorry, do i? it is my emotion. do i hear a second? yeah. i second thank you on that motion. then to continue this matter to may second to allow for the architectural review committee to consider this on april 17th, commissioner baldauf, i commissioner campbell. yes. commissioner. vergara. yes commissioner. wright. yes. and commissioner warren. yes so move. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 and concludes your hearing today. .

>> (music).

>> the ferry building one of san francisco most famous that as many of 15 thousand commuters pass through that each gay. >> one of the things that one has to keep in mind regarding san francisco is how young the city we are. and nothing is really happening here before the gold rush. there was a small

spanish in the presiding and were couriers and fisherman that will come in to rest and repair their ships but at any given time three hundred people in san francisco. and then the gold rush happened. by 182948 individuals we are here to start a new life. >> by 1850 roughly 16 thousand ships in the bay and left town in search of gold leaving their ships behind so they scraped and had the ships in the bay and corinne woods. with sand the way that san francisco was and when you look at a map of san francisco have a unique street grid and one of the thing is

those streets started off in extremely long piers. but by 1875 they know they needed more so the ferry building was built and it was a long affair and the first cars turned around at the ferry building and picking up people and goods and then last night the street light cars the trams came to that area also. but by the late 1880s we needed something better than the ferry building. a bond issue was passed for $600,000. to build a new ferry building i would say 800 thousand for a studio apartment in san francisco they thought that was a grand ferry building had a competition to hire an architecture and choose

a young aspiring architect and in the long paris and san francisco had grand plans for this transit station. so he proposed the beautiful new building i wanted it wider, there is none tonight. than that actually is but the price of concrete quitclaim two how and was not completed and killed. but it opened a greater claim and became fully operational before 1898 and first carriages and horses for the primary mode of transportation but market street was built up for serve tram lines and streetcars could go up to the door to embarcadero to hospitals and mission street up to nob hill and the fisherman's

area. and then the earthquake hit in 190 six the ferry building collapsed the only thing had to be corrected once the facade of the tower. and 80 percent of the city would not survive the buildings collapsed the streets budges and the trams were running and buildings had to highland during the fire after the actuate tried to stop the mask fire in the city so think of a dennis herrera devastation of a cable car they were a mess the streets were torn up and really, really wanted to have a popular sense they were on top of that but two

weeks after the earthquake kind of rigged a way getting a streetcar to run not on the cable track ran electrical wires to get the streetcars to run and 2 was pretty controversial tram system wanted electrical cars but the earthquake gave them to chance to show how electrical cars and we're going to get on top this. >> take 10 years for the city to rebuild. side ferry use was increasing for a international exhibition in 1950 and people didn't realize how much of a community center the ferry building was. it was the center for celebration. the upper level

of ferry building was a gathering place. also whenever there was a war like the filipino war or world war two had a parade on market street and the ferry building would have banners and to give you an idea how central to the citywide that is what page brown wanted to to be a gathering place in that ferry building hay day the busiest translation place in the world how people got around transit and the city is dependent on that in 1915 of an important year that was the year of our international exposition 18 million living in san francisco and that was supposedly to celebrate the open of panama differential but back

in business after the earthquake and 22 different ferry boats to alamed and one had the and 80 trips a day a way of life and in 1918 san francisco was hit hard by the flu pandemic and city had mask mandates and anyone caught without a doubt a mask had a risk ever being arrested and san francisco was hit hard by the pandemic like other places and rules about masks wearing and what we're supposed to be more than two people without our masks on i read was that on the ferry those guys wanted to smoke their pipes and taking off their masks and getting from trouble so two would be hauled away.

>> the way the ferry building was originally built the lower level with the natural light was used for take it off lunge storage. the second floor was where passengers offloaded and all those people would spill out and central stairway of the building that is interesting point to talk about because such a large building one major stairway and we're talking about over 40 thousand people one of the cost measures was not building a pedestrian bridge with the ferry building and the embarcadero on market street was actually added in and in 1918 but within 20 years to have san

francisco bay the later shipbuilding port in the world and the pacific we need the iron that. as the ferry system was at the peak two bridges to reach san francisco. and automobiles were a popular item that people wanted to drive themselves around instead of the ferry as a result marin and other roots varnished. the dramatic draw in ferry usage was staggering who was using the ferry that was a novelty rather than a transportation but the ferry line stopped one by one because everyone was getting cars and wanted to drive and cars were a big deal. take the care ferry and to san francisco and spend the day or for a saturday drive

but really, really changed having the car ferry. >> when the bay bridge was built had a train that went along the lower level so that was a major stay and end up where our sales force transit center is now another way of getting into the city little by little the ferry stopped having a purpose. >> what happened in the 40 and 50's because of this downturn we were trying to find a purpose a number of proposals for a world trade center and wanted to build it own the philly in a terrible idea objective never gotten down including one that had too tall

towers a trade center in new york but a tower in between that was a part of ferry building and completely impractical. after the cars the tower administration wanted to keep americans deployed and have the infrastructure for the united states. so they had an intrastate free plan the plan for major freeway systems to go throughout san francisco. and so the developers came up with the bay bridge and worked their way along embarcadero. the plans were to be very, very efficient for that through town he once the san francisco saw had human services agency happening 200 though people figure out city

hall offender that the embarcadero free was dropped and we had the great free to no where. which cut us off from the ferry building and our store line and created in 1989 and gave us the opportunity to tear down the free. and that was the renaissance of ferry building. >> that land was developed for a new ferry building and whom new embarcadero how to handle travel and needed a concept for the building didn't want- that was when a plan was developed for the liquor store.

>> the san francisco ferry building has many that ups and downs and had a huge hay day dribbled adopt to almost nothing and after the earthquake had a shove of adrenaline to revise the waterfront and it moved around the bay and plans for more so think investment in the future and feel that by making a reliable ferry system once the ferry building will be there to surface. >>

>> in 201,755.7 million passengers traveled through san francisco international airport. we have on average 150,000 people traveling through the airport every day. flying can be stressful so we have introduced therapy dogs to make flying more enjoyable. the wag brigade is a partnership between the airport and the san

francisco therapy animal assistant program to bring therapy animals into the airport, into the terminals to make passenger travel more enjoyable. i amgen fer casarian and i work here at san francisco international airport. the idea for therapy dogs got started the day after 9/11. an employee brought his therapy dog to work after 9/11 and he was able to see how his dog was able to relieve passenger's jitter. when we first launched the program back in 2013, our main goal was to destress our passengers however what we quickly found is that our animals were helping us find a way to connect with our pang. passengers. we find there are a lot of people traveling through the airport who are missing their pets and who are on their road a

lot and can't have pets and we have come in contact with a lot of people recently who have lost pet. >> i love the wag brigade. >> one of my favorite parts is walking into the terminals and seeing everybody look up from their device, today everybody is interacting on their cell phone or laptop and we can walk into the terminal with a dog or a pig and people start to interact with each other again and it's on a different level. more of an emotional level. >> i just got off an 11.5 hour flight and nice to have this distraction in the middle of it. >> we look for wag brigade handlers who are comfortable in stressful situations.

>> i like coming to airport it's a lot of fun and the people you talk to are generally people who are missing their dogs. >> they are required to compete a certification process. and they are also required to complete a k9 good citizen test and we look for animals who have experienced working with other organizations such as hospitals and pediatric units and we want to be sure that the animals we are bringing into the airport are good with children and also good with some of our senior travelers. i think toby really likes meeting kids. that is his favorite thing. he likes to have them pet him and come up to him and he really loves the kids. >> our wag brigade animals can be spotted wearing custom vets

and they have custom patches. >> there is never a day that repeats itself and there is never and encounter that repeats itself. we get to do maximum good in a small stretch of time and i have met amazing people who have been thrilled to have the interaction. >> the dogs are here seven days a week, we have 20 dogs and they each come for a two hour shift. >> there is a lot of stress when people have traveling so to from these animals around to ease the stress and help people relax a little bit. i think it's great. >> one of our dogs has special need and that is tristine. he wears a wheel around.

>> he has special shoes and a harness and we get it together in the parking lot and then we get on the air train. he loves it. little kids love him because he is a little lower to the ground so easy to reach and he has this big furry head they get to pet and he loves that. >> he doesn't seem to mind at all. probably one of the happiest dogs in the world. >> many people are nervous when they travel but seeing the dogs is just a wonderful relief. >> what i absolutely love most about it is the look on people's faces, so whenever they are stressed and flying is stressful these days you get these wonderful smile. >> i am the mom of lilo the pig and she is san francisco's first therapy pig. >> lilo joined the wag brigade

as our first pig. >> wag brigade invited us to join the program here and we have done it about a year-and-a-half ago. our visits last 1.5 to 2 hours and it does take a little bit longer to get out of the terminal because we still get a lot of attention and a lot of people that want to interact with lilo. >> i feel honored to be part of the wag brigade. it's very special to meet so many people and make so many feel happy and people that work here. it's been a great experience for me and a great experience for to toby. >> it's been an extremely

successful program, so the next time you are here, stop by and say hi. pen. i. >> well to edge own little square we are a new culture "accelerating sf government performance - taking accountability and transparency to the next level." the artist and culture of chinatown. as an immigrant giveaway we tell the stories of chinatown the people that are here and the culture and history our presence and future through arts and culture. it is a 35 community. there is so many to see come come in and buy certify increases and ongoing exhibitions here t t t t

niversary of adoption of vision zero. that is event at city hall mayor spoke and director tumlin spoke and community and elected leaders spoke and i was very pleased we marked that milestone. >> good morning everyone. let's all give a happy birtday for golden gate park! [applause] a brief love note to kick off the festivities. so, in a city like san francisco, parks are really powerful places, and they rep mind us that place is powerful. and golden gate park just might be san francisco's most important place to understand golden gate park is to understand san francisco. from the post gold rush years to the 1906 earthquake and fire, from the panama pacific international expigz and summer of love.

aids epidemic and pl