Is a variety of mitigations that are required that are similar to the ones here. The process has been slightly refined to point out what youre saying, which is that if the project does not meet the standards, but it does retain some elements in this additional mitigation. We refined it a little bit to make it clearer since we have the retained elements in draft form, that would be one of the documents we can utilize from the staffs review and from project sponsors to have an understanding about what we mean by that. Does not help clarify . With a project like that come before the commission, there are many projects that are Historic Resources that have to go through the eir process, often, almost all the time that comes before the arc. Would that be a similar thing. Of her project was going through that, if its not going through an eir process because this is here but then it will not be seen because its administrative. Thats correct. They are not going through the fall or process and coming through the arc in that regard. Our task is to provide any comments and there is two pieces , there is the plan and then there is the two specific projects, and that two specific projects dont seem to have any issues, the impacts have been mitigated print unless we have further comment than that they were just pointing that out. Do we have any response or guidance to staff on this . I had a couple of thoughts, i was looking out the 18 particular properties and it seemed to me that the potential of those being affected in any significant way was small. That is why i asked about that small district, because, you know, i mean, they are individual sites. Someone would, you know, literally have to, you know, by out, you know, 38 sites to get a big enough footprint to, you know, because youre not going to build 160foot high building on a site that is 25 by, you know, 100. It seemed to me that the area was relatively safe, and then, the building that is on Mission Street, i forgot the number, i forgot the name of it, there is one on Mission Street that is a substantial building. Not one of the one on Market Street are already significant buildings. It didnt seem like there was the potential for a huge amount of impact relative to the plan, the proposed plan. That is why i was asking about clearly the alternates a dont do anything, and alternate b seems odd. You know, c that was a question, we are and the staff to review the process which i feel perfectly comfortable with. You know, to go through that. You know, my comments are that i dont think any of the alternatives make a lot of sense , relative to the project. That is how i see it. I think the potential impact is very, very small. V. P. Matsuda i think as a commission we would want to put forward some recommendations. Alternative c would be the one we would want to that make sense. Yeah. The three projects when i asked you to restate them. We talked about those three, because as different than the previous information, right . Ten south van ness, 99 south van ness and 170 south otis, are we evaluating the impacts during this process here . I think so. Just to clarify. Two projects getting approval through the draft eir. Those are the 30 van ness and 98 franklin street, they dont have impacts to Historic Resources so that is why we did not bring them to you previously. The other projects are getting up zoned. Those are the sites where we have identified Historic Resources. Those are called out more specifically. A more direct impact of the potential plan. There were two projects that stuck out, and i dont remember what the second one is, but its one of these three. Ten south 2019001734pta van ness, thats the old honda dealer. This scheme is showing a single tower. I recall the post project is a double tower did not get involved . I think this is just showing the height and bulk. It should be taken one way or the other. Just to clarify, the two tower scheme would occur if the zoning did not change. The current height limit is 400 feet. The reason i bring that up is because we were presented with information on that particular project, as if the resource cannot be maintained because of the impacts to the foundation. If its a single tower, it could be moved. I dont know where we are at in the process. One of the challenges is it is a triangular site. There is not very places to put the tower. If theres a single tower, theres more than if there is two. That may be out of the gate, we are potentially not want to see it again. The other one was a really cool midcentury building. I dont remember if it was 170 otis . 170 otis. What will happen without . Coming out of this process, it seems like that building will have to be demolished because one order for a tower to be built there. I think there is also, its a cityowned building. It doesnt have the height. No, but we are raising the height limit. One of the challenges of that building is the seismic condition. It is really just matching the height district to what exists today. Right now, the way the parcel is mapped, it doesnt reflect what is on the ground. Its updating the height to reflect what is there. We are not really increasing capacity. You are trying to make it clear with the zoning options, or requirements, or limits are about site . As a project comes forward on that site, are we going to see it again . Will there be another draft eir on that . That particular zoning increase was not that great though. It would not support a big tower. I think the zoning was 160 feet, that project, i mean, that building is 85. It is up to 150. We are moving the 150 feet designation to the portion of the building that is already that height. That is what im saying. We are not increasing the capacity of that site we are just matching what exists. 99 south van ness, dotson art deco, Storage Building right now that seemed like a very challenging site to add onto, because it is so narrow, you know, it is, as well. It seems like that would be a challenge for a developer to come in and try to do Something Big there. Our young i am not familiar with the scale of it. Its that is why we trust the staff to say, you know, what would be the process there. That seems like its almost, may it is land markable. It is this an exquisite example of art deco at that time. Does staff ever have the discretion, assuming that this goes forward does the staff otherwise, outside of the eir have discretion to refer anything to the Historic Preservation commission . I mean, you have the ability to review and comment on Environmental Review and relationship to environmental resources. I could do for this to the attorney. But yes, we could, if that became an issue. The Historic Preservation commission request to review any project in regards to its historic resource. If it came to us it would be a review, and it would just be a comment, under this plan, if some Historic Building came to us it would still just be a, right . We have one comment. Any others . I think its well done. Very good. We can move on to item number eight, 2018015774coa at 15, this is a certificate of appropriateness. We will hear from staff first, then you have an opportunity. Good afternoon commissioners, shannon ferguson, Department Staff. This is a request for certificate of appropriateness for the property at 581 waller street. Constructed circa 1900 and the queen annes library at a contributor to both parks historic districts. The proposed project is to abate planning enforcement case. In august of 2016, the hpc granted historic appropriateness. [reading notes] current work undertaken at the subject property does not reflect the design approved by the hpc and was completed without benefit of a permit. Specifically removal of the entire roof, removal of all interior structural framework. Removal of the entire fourth floor plates, and removal of the entire rear elevation. The project proposes to restore the first 12 seat 11 inches of the room behind the gable at the existing ridge height and existing 45 degrees slope. Restore the fourth floor plate of the same level as existing, and restore the rear elevation with framing and new tongue and roof horizontal siding. As well as insert additional skylights at the refer a total of six mountain skylights. In addition, i wanted to note that project sponsors did misrepresent in august 2,018 to planning staff revision. It specifically states that the dormers to be revised back to the original configuration. Staff approval specifically states that the permit is to revise permits back to 315. However the proposed roof plan shows dormers much larger in size and volume. This type of expansion would require neighborhood notification under section 311 of the planning covariate the plan also shows revisions to the rear elevations. The description of work on the permit makes no mention of these revisions. Regarding the proposed work to the planning enforcement case, staff has determined that the work and additional new work with the recommended conditions as outlined in your case report will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article ten of the planning code. The secretary of standards and will be compatible with the character defining features of the landmark district. Based on analysis, staff recommends approval with the following conditions. Dormers be constructed as per the hpc motion, number 315. South elevation as approved for the previous Building Permit. This elevation is proposed in this permit is more contemporary and compatible with the subject property in the district. New glass panes be from the primary wall. Also that though would guard rails be constructed at the roof and roof decks, and a trellis on the second floor of the south elevation. As part of the Building Permit, planning staff, preservation staff would conduct a final site visit to confirm and harrison action has been abated. This concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I have a question, is there anything that gives you any confidence that we wont be down this same road again . I dont mean personally, i mean, the department. The project architect is here. Can we get a presentation . I am eliza, i am the architect to get. Did you want to address the commission and give us a response . Well, just to say that this project has been reviewed by the Preservation Commission and the only visible difference from the right away is the addition of a skylight, the profile of the dormer from the front has not changed at all. And that during the demolition and during the work that is being done, the house is in bad shape, it is a fixerupper. The contractors discovered that the framing was not a very good condition. They exceeded what was shown on the plans because they just saw bad framing and they just wanted to replace it with code compliance are framing as well. There was also a requirement for a ridge beam, it would have been easier to build the roof by replacing the roof rather than working with the existing to install it ridge beam. That doesnt quite its interesting information, but it doesnt answer my question which is what is there that would allow us to think that the owner, and his troops will not, once again, violate all of the permits, or the conditions under which it is supposed to fix up the building . Because the fact that they like to complete the project, the project has been on hold for almost a year now, and they learn through enforcement that this is a terrible thing. They would do what is shown in the plan. They want to finish it. Its been on hold. Does that answer your question . It is an answer, some particularly satisfactory. As shannon explained they will send someone out to a field inspection. I will report to the contractor that that is going to happen. They have the interest, they have goodwill. They are not trying to slip anything by anybody. Theyre just trying to get it done. We do have Planning Division that has an active enforcement case on this project. Its part of the conditions of approval, that shannon mentioned, they will be required to have a site visit to make sure that the modifications are followed. Tran21 question, are you, and his is the owner okay with the conditions of approval . That is the first i heard of it. We would like the dormer enlarged to what our most recent permit approval was. Other than that, we are fine with everything. I did have a question here. Where there any fines assessed for this . This is related to where supervisor peskin came out about Historic Buildings that may have intentionally, or not intentionally being demolished, or exceeding their scope. We do have our enforcement staff here and they can answer that question. Kelly wong, im the preservation enforcement planner , scientific case. There were no penalties assessed because we issued no enforcement, and they did within the timeframe submit a revision permit. And also a new seat of a two ring support before the Historic Preservation commission. Are we okay with the conditions as staff has given them. If we are, the only thing we have to decide on is the dormers we have been told that there is enforcement action, i assume that that means that the people representing the department who are supposed to be looking over this will do so with diligence. I am unclear about the dormer. The architecture said, before you say anything, i just want to clarify my question. My understanding is that this has to be rebuilt per the original h. P. C. C of a witch has smaller dormers. That is not my question. My question is about, you just asked that you are able to rebuild the dormer to a bigger size. The staff seems to be saying, know that is not the case. It has to meet the requirements, the smaller dormer that was a requirement before. I think that was one of the questions that commission hyland was asking despite the fact that you may want to bigger, are you okay with it, because to meet the mitigation measures, or the conditions, im sorry, to meet the conditions you would have to rebuild the dormers to the previously approved size. That is really the question if you guys are okay with that, or are you asking for the bigger dormer . We would like to ask for the bigger dormer. Its like 2 feet bigger. Its easier to build, on page 1. 4 a, if you look at the two roof plans, the dormer extends to the Property Line on the one we would like, its just in from the Property Line. Its just slightly bigger. On the Southeast Side . Correct. You can see that little notch on the right hand drawing okay. Thank you. The question for the staff, thank you, is there any particular reason why that is approvable or not approvable from a staff point of view . Dormers just an increase in size, and going all the way to the edge of the ridge line, so there is no really, kind of a sense of what the refuse to to be in the back. It goes all the way back. I know we are keeping it in the front, but it would be nice to see a ridgeline and the roof in. Is this a property that can be seen . No. It is not. As you know, both parks landmark district it is the first three properties of face the part. This one does not face the park. No. Yeah. I mean, i guess im inclined if this was before us originally, would we have approved it . I think we would have. I would be okay with changing this first condition. I dont know what other commissioners thing. It seems like they have cooperated, they continue to cooperate. If this was before us originally we may have approved it. I also wanted to say that ive been in positions where you open up a house, and all of a sudden you find that, you know, it is rotted out. This is not the case here. That is what we were just told. That is not the case . If there was dry rot they would have called the building inspector and they would have issued a notice of correction and there was no notice of correction here. I think a larger dormer would require a 311 notice. It would. That is the issue. Again, two options we approved with the conditions or we alter the conditions. I have a question for the architect again. Knowing that this you have to go through this process, and go through a 311 notification. We will go back to what was originally approved to avoid that. We want to move forward. Its been on hold for so long. That answers the question. Thank you. We dont have to modify anything. And make a motion to approve with the conditions as stated. Second. Nothing further commissioners, a that has been seconded to approve this matter. [roll call] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 500. Placing us on item nine, case number 2019001734pta 149 9th street. This is a major permit to alter. Good afternoon commissioners. Planning Department Staff. The application before you is a request for a major permit to at 149 9th street. Article 11, category three contributory building of contextual importance located within the regional commercial zoning district. This a Corner Property is developed with a fourstory brick industrial building constructed in 1923, as the headquarters of the western leather manufacturing company. The ninth street facade are both visible from the public rightofway. This project includes restoration of two window veins on to mystery elevation i work at the roof level including a roof deck with glazed railing and new stair and elevator penthouses. Only portions of the new penthouses would be visible from ninth street. All scopes of work proposed in this entitlement were previously reviewed by this commission in december of 2018, part of the Building Change of use under h. P. C. Resolution 1004. The adopted resolution was included as an exhibit in your packets today. The department has not received any written letters of opposition or support regarding the project. Given the limited availability of new rooftop features, the set back provide a for new penthouses and the fact the visible penthouses are fairly common in the visible area. The proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article 11 of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. Based on the analysis found in the case report, staff therefore recommends approval with the following conditions. First part of the Building Permit the project sponsor shall provide final material samples to Department Staff