Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 5, 2013 6:30am-7:01am PST

6:30 am
probably the condition of ice it can be turned back into a restaurant we have major concerns about that. we understand we can't restrict the use of that property but there's noise and all those things >> thank you, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners thank you for taxiing me at this hearing. i want to say on behalf of the architect that has done several historic projects both the city, state, and national level we're down from julius castle. personally as you walk past the case he will i pass by it. for us as a company we've done
6:31 am
projects to 371 filling better street and telephone graph hill. we've done the patterson building at stanford and warren's tech center. we went in for support to items that are non-controversial issues. i was going to touch on the color specification and to leave the brick exposes in both proposals you've reached a compromise on those. at least in the telephone graph area article 10 suggested it was jefferson left up to the owner and their accountant and as i
6:32 am
can see their bringing in the original artists of the paint color. and second was on the exposed brick from the pictures we've seen it so you would your movie in a good direction. we don't see any historic pictures of that part of the building it was there when the building was historical built. it doesn't seem like - the brick was added by the other owner that doesn't match the brick that's in the area we're carefully to what was historical in the landmark. thank you for your time
6:33 am
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm joe. i was not planning on speaking and the reason i came down here i'm a native san franciscan and also a resident of telephone graph hill. i want to see who's crazy enough to take this project on. it's a big job and also to give paula big pat on the back to be tenacious and stick with the project. i think it's important because one paul sincerely wants to take this landmark and restore it. as a residential real estate broker i've done a lot of business it's a prices block and commands top dollar i did a deal
6:34 am
for 15 hundreds bucks for a square foot. we had other restaurant that was turned into a residence. that's the best value for this property. somebody could dig into the hill and a spin this offer for a lot of money. so bringing the restaurants wouldn't yield the i highest amount of money >> thank you. any other member of the public wishes to speak >> good afternoon. i'm bob i'm a professional color consultant and started as a painter and got into historic restoration. member of the victorian alliance for over thirty.
6:35 am
i've restored or colored over 17 thousand historic homes in san francisco. not counting bay area or alameda or how does u outside of the state. that's my background and paul came to me and asked me to give him the colors from julius castle and we specified it. since 1982 i never received one complaint from nobody i got pats on the back. i want to recommend in the spirit of san francisco we have a go back to the original and i'm saying from 1982 color
6:36 am
scheme. i prepared colors on a color board i don't know if anyone has time to look at it. i remember what i did then and when i went out there i conforms what i did in 1982. this is paul's idea of a color scheme which is down the sires a little bit. it's a darker looking look and this is a gayer look in the sense of the old term back in the 60s and 70s and it meant smell. it uplifted and bright. those are in the peach i didn't attains. the people i never heard one
6:37 am
complaint. the place is falling apart and needs a paint job balanced. i'll only hope you'll approve any former colors >> thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public? >> seeing none, public comment is closed and back to commission. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i wanted to thank mr. scott for taking on just like i forgot his name jeff something. those are going to be lost if you don't step forward so thank you. i want to encourage the misconduct 0 open the stair and if that was put there recently there's no reason to keep it. and then with the paint i said encourage that mr. buck take
6:38 am
care; right? design decisions have some weight and validity in our conditions of approval. thank you, thank you >> commissioner highland. we have 9 bullets and if i can be indulged can we go through them. the first bullet seems adequate. the second bullet if we're not anywhere near 50 percent replacement then i don't see a reason why it can't be included. there is a missing word the last sentence on the right h pc at a regular schedule hearing. i prop we keep that in there.
6:39 am
it's important if we get above 50 percent we're not taking wholesale removal. the misconduct 0 i'm fine with. the fourth one i'm not sure is necessary it seems like a lot of work so i suggest eliminating that. the same with the 6th bullet. double check. yeah, the fifth bullet because it referenced a condition assessment that may or may not be necessary. the sixth bullet the specification of the brick cleaning and restoration i don't know if this is more common practice now or anyway, we
6:40 am
should talk about that. the paint providing make up with the colors it sufficient and samples of the woodsideing and doors seems excessive i don't know why that's necessary but the negligentability bullet is necessary. only question is whether or not we keep the sixth bullet >> we recommend keeping it, it's a fairly common practice to at least see the specifications to see how the work will be completed where the notes and the details and the drawings don't have this information. and commissioner highland did you say to strike bullet 5 >> i did. >> and we'd move up a make up
6:41 am
screening scream to bullet 9? >> yeah. to repeat that really it's only number 6 that we have to discuss. >> is there any other comment or make that as a motion then. >> so i will repeat motion to say will make sense and a bullet one will retain as is and bullet 2 stays in if it's less than 50 there's a need to implement it with the addition of at following h pc in the last sentence. misconduct 0 open the brick surface would be - >> bullet that you can strike. >> yeah. trike 3. bullet 4 constrict.
6:42 am
bullet 5 strike and bullet 6 is open for discussion >> yeah, we can leave it and a strike bullet 7 but put the make up into the 9 and strike bullet 8. >> the only thing while we may not need specific information on the wood doors or windows we do feel strongly there should be a material standard be submitted. >> it should be easier than assembling all those materials or samples. >> so that's prior to the materials board showing finishes shall be provide. >> yeah. >> that was the motion to
6:43 am
approve. >> that was my motion to approve with those conditions. >> second. >> thank you actually call the role please. excuse me. i don't know if commissioner highland made the second. thank you, commissioner highland. so on the motion commissioners to approve the conditions striking the third, 4, 5, 7 bullet to include a materials board and the negligent including a make up scheme with that (calling names)
6:44 am
so moved, commissioners, that motion passes it will place you on abc one overall project for cases 136 at 1019 market street adoption for a historic called contract and in case 2012679 for 2250 webster street and 376920th street >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> if i might commissioners we have a hard stop at 4:30. >> the items are 3 miles contracts and 1019 market.
6:45 am
item b is 2550 webster street on landmark and it's historically known as the bore mansion. if you take into account this miles from the application packet can i get the screen up. you'll see we're at this line of the application process when is between september 1st and the end of the year that includes you and with our approval will go to the board of supervisors. the miles act we'll go through a description of all 3 properties. it authorizes local governments to enter into owners with
6:46 am
private historic properties with reduction in their property taxes the contract are reutilized every year. they must be designated on the national register. they must be worth $5 million. the 3 plagues before you today were submitted to the planning department were submitted on may 1st ace been forwarded to the assessor and property tax evaluation. the evaluation is for every property and the assessor offices are working for the evaluation of all properties. this was exhibit d and c for the webster street property.
6:47 am
the evictions will be approveed. the article 11 building the historic architect they submit their plantation for the structure report. this is required as the property exceeded the $5 million thresholds. the department staff have worked with the project plan. they want 0 repair the up banks and the observation of the sheet metal and reglazing all historic windows. the maintenance requires care for the roof and window and the concrete walls. the rehabilitation contract reflects the h pc contract based
6:48 am
on the following items. the property is a designated resource. after reviewing the plan they have the contract and necessary keeping with the secretary it does for rehabilitation and the property meets the exemption career and the historic report shows the historic work to be done on the property. moving into webster street the 3 story building was built in 1896 when was president of the water company. at the time of its application the property was under $3 million and the renovation
6:49 am
plan was work to replace the roofing and structural reimbursement and no changes to the youth or the configuration of the building. along with the exterior masonry doors and windows the department staff recommends the approval to the board of supervisors. for the following items the building is under the historic process. the department finds the contract to be appropriate in keeping with the secretary of the interior standards and lastly is item c-3960 the contributor to the landmark district it was built in 1871
6:50 am
pits currently valued under the $3 million threshold and to make seismic improvements to the historic property. the maintenance plan involves annual inspections and windows and glazing and roof. the department staff recommends the approval to the board of supervisors for this contracted based on the following items it's a designated historic resource under article 10 of the planning code and after reviewing this the department finds this contract to be appropriate. this concludes my presentation. as the project sponsors for 1019 market street we have two for those projects. i'll give the mike to them and also a gentleman from the
6:51 am
assessors office if you have any additional questions >> commissioner and mr. fry thank you very much for me being here i'm the owners representative for 1019 market. i want to thank for the work you folks have done we're proud to be part of it. we've done projects in other cities. the miles act is very important and i'm available for any questions. ask me anything you want >> thank you commissioners. we have one more sponsor? >> yeah. >> i'm greg i had a presentation prepared but time is getting short i'll be happy to be available for questions.
6:52 am
when my wife and i bought this property it's an overwhelming project it's a wreck and a lot of water damage to it and poor maintenance in the past and we defrmd we were going to restore this building leaning toward restoration rather than rehabilitation. we're talking about what we've done a couple of examples and keeping it historically correct i had the motor analyzed and reproduced almost the same motor mix and we rebuilt the windows instead of replacing them and we used a quarter of inch of glass. we've been - we had a lot of wood rot repaired.
6:53 am
we upgraded the building but we've been careful. i had a master craft man's working on the job he takes those beautiful woodwork but a lot of it had water damage and took it out and straightened it out and put that back in place. when we've had to replace materials to the extent i went out and matched the redwood. and we have a long way to go there's a lot of things in the house. we've had plumbing leaks where the sewage has leaked out. we have very good craftsman working on the house but a lot
6:54 am
of time and effort and money has gone into this we think this house is a perfect item for the mills act >> thank you. commissioners any questions? seeing none, any public comment? on any of those public comment is closed we'll bring it back to commission. i do what one on the liability stream one mr. fry. with the big addition of the garage to the front etc., you know, are we stretching on this one and the question is i see repairs to the front steps and the roof desk and stuff that
6:55 am
wasn't there that had nothing to do with this. i'm a little bit lessory and the goal in working with the property owners here was to revise some of the work that's required so if there is work to be done that will reduce the overall size and bulk of that and to return the garage to the historic setting the language is lose but the property owners were comfortable with. that language can be strengthened in the front yard set back but if there is anything to be addressed with the property owner we feel their
6:56 am
heats in the right place and the general intent is to do the work but we can add to it. yes park and rec staff there's the historic property with the garage at the front and the addition that was done to the back of the property. the work that's included is work that's effecting the historic structure only. the things we allotted them to put into the property that is relating to the garage for instance, where the location where the garage mets the how is it is causing water damage running back to the historic structure. so there's a few little cases that might seem a little bit sketchy. there's a justified reason for
6:57 am
including those scopes. the same with the addition we didn't allow them to include the after the accident with the mills act so there was things that were back and forth and had to be sort of out >> yeah, the mills act is for upkeep and restoration. i've been a big promoter of the mills act this is something we've got a modern addition of a garage on something and we're starting to step into and repair this modern stuff. even the watertank is a defect in the water dine.
6:58 am
i'm a little bit weary on this 20th street one >> yeah, just to reiterate what ms. parks said the goal in strushg was not to allow the work but work to preserve the longest gift and the continued use of the historic property we included it in so repairing the water issues in the garage would, in fact, did he take care of the water damage. if we can make that connection we would but if not we'll have them pull it out >> commissioner highland. >> thank you, carl. >> how many mills acts have we had so far. >> 5 active contracts and this
6:59 am
would be 7, 8 and 9. >> so we're still in the single-digits. i know the street i know the entire street along those blocks have those garages and they all have those water problems and anything we can do to help that will help the fountains to them. i wasn't preparing to say that but i think those all 3 are great and i would support them. there is one typo i think in the 2550 webster and the pages are not numbered its number 2 on the second page of the application property falls under the following tax assessment values and it says commercial and
7:00 am
residential mix use is checked yes and i think it should say no >> you're right. >> it should say yes under the residential. >> i don't know if you want to discuss further. >> yeah. thank you i think those are all impressive. i met jeff green on another project and he showed me pictures and jeff is one of the best in the country of doing restorations of the buckle or knows and i very much encourage he's aid and abeted by the mills contract. so do we want to go one b