interior standards and how it's done with one very, very welcome >> first of all, thank you very much for this report it's well done and thorough and i agree with generally with your recommendations. the one comment i want to make and it's kind of a follow-up some of those recommendations will need further lobbying to be pledged. the one is the citywide survey which is very important but that's a big pitch to make that happen. and i think one argument that could be included for a citywide survey is you think about what will happen when we have a major disaster like an earthquake that devastated the city and you have firefighter looking at triage

where do very start and a which buildings do they demolish. and they want to look up the google map. thinking about it in the context that information in the survey will be so valuable a in the immediate response and b if the city is ruined because of the disaster it could be added >> i'm actually delighted you brought that up because one of lie multiple long projects had to do with writing a report about planning and the recovery and we have a sections on the historic preservation that calls for that purpose. i'm glad i brought that up. it was a disastrous planning not everybody's favorite topic she

disconcerting but i'll be happy to send you that report >> thank you. >> i just wanted to thank you for putting this together. i was wondering what the life of this is. people who are not involved in the historic preservation but clarifies a lot of the fallacies and it can be brought to the african-american community when they start thinking about resources to preference and things to highlight are you planning on taking this on the road it seemed like a waste i put all this time and effort it shouldn't just sit on a shelf and i really appreciate that. this is one of the first stops on the road show.

we paired this what exhibition catalog. we felt there was an exciting evenly traffic for people. this is again, a stop open the road show but if there are particular communities please let's see know wielding we'd be happy to take that on the road i believe on the website heritage as well. we want it to go out to as many people as possible >> well kind of continuing that line of thinking. that the commissioner was suggesting. are we - it seems like this is

in our lab now the historic preservation commission and i would hope we would have figured out how to come to grips with some which the recommendations there's a lot of material in here. i for one am very interested in the intersection between planning and the historical preservation and the new urbanism. i went to the lecture and it was interesting the standard 9 and i read jeffs report that he do in oregon about looking at standard 9 so in my own i'm trying to sort of out for my own self as well as further recommendations to the commission here what

would be important to really grandpa out of here, of course, you said the ceiling survey. i'm trying to sort out you raised a lot of good things. i think who would be important to the secretary standards a couple like this 9 are being reviewed and there's some recommendations for changes there. i still want to pursue this further. what we can grab into. i guess we're on that >> i'd like to add the department is working on the local interpretations piece and john and robert has offered to present to the historic committee to the development local interpretation. one caveat on the recommendation that we thought it is important

they be context specific to recognize the conditions throughout the city and we'll be hearing that when the department makes it's presentation >> i want to talk about in terms of which ones would grab into. there were certain recommendations in orange those are important to start with. i if i were you i'd focus on the sequa remedies. there are many of them underway and poor mike was the chair of the district and he had no controversy in his sequa committee. we had to form a subcommittee on the potential districts this was fun. about the potential districts are treated and how that works

not only for the large projects the eirs that's kind of one set of issues but it's those middle to small size projects that get caught up in the web trying to get some clarity. for the sequa ones to jog your america in report you have the executive summary an page 5 and oats sequa recommendations we highlighted were number 13 that's the encouraged calculation between the property staff and owners to achieve the standards. the mechanism for project applicants to get an opinion from the ar c. developing the new administrative bull ton for

conducting the roars. we've had people practicing for 20 or thirty years and small business has to draw me a picture and one person draw one and that drawing x x x and circle and circles and circles and people come up and say that's not quite right. somebody needs to make the process clear and transparent to the public. that's one thing the commission could do. and lastly, the other thing we identified is this issue of number 18 for projects that are not within the districts what is the level of sequa review. and it isn't orange but the one above it the potential districts

what's itself survey and boundary of those surveys and the level of details. we heard from some people some people did a survey x y and what are the level of details. of course, that would all go away if we did the citywide survey but those are interim steps >> commissioners, i had one extra thought. there's not one recommendations with regards to the sequa that would require legislation. those are implementations policies that the staff can do and is doing and, you know, also trying to improve the processes >> i too want to thank spur and

heritage for tackling this effort and thank you for talking about the shelf life the document because once you print it, it's out-of-date. won thing in discussions now is on the benefit side of ownership resources. there's tube citywide tax credits it caught after this was published. the sequa regulation has b there been an attempt to do a budget for a citywide survey and a tim with the staff. we've mauled over a few numbers but nothing concrete >> so when we're talking about a citywide level it's hard to understand what kind of of an

effort if we don't know the details la is going into their 7th survey and they're going to be done before we start. on the property owners prospective there's a lot of misinformation of what it means to be surveyed. without your property being surveyed your going to to go through the interior sequa process every time so having a citywide survey could make that process smoother and quicker. and last i would like to understand with jane kim's follow on legislation on sequa if there's any per view that the h pc can have on the resources

that are not under articles 10 or leveling and whether the ar c can hear those. i believe there might be some ability to bring some of that to the ar c. that's a question for staff. >> thank you, mr. fry. >> commissioners tim fry department staff. maybe there are more comments i figured i'd like to address a couple of things. we're hoping to not only to continue this discussion and make sure the document stays alive and those conversations keep happening. over the course of maybe the next year we would like to schedule another hearing with you and talk about as was said we have been implementing changes.

throughout the entire program and some have been partially address and others are in our pipeline we know we need to talk about them. but we're continuing to work on redrafting, outlines what needs to go in certain documents. maybe next year we'll perpetrate a formal response and others things we need help with and through the heritage spur task force and the public get more guidance how we can continue to improve the program >> commissioner ram. >> thanks for all the work on the report it's helpful. it would be very helpful to me

to hear from commissioners necessarily today but in the coming weeks your specifics on the recommendations. as tim said we'll propping prepare for the response in updating you but my review you have those recommendations is that many of them are good ideas and some i have concerns about. it would be good to hear your recommendations on what you think we should be moving forward with. maybe in a few weeks to talk about that. and i do think it's important secondly, to put a dollar sign to some of those things. the city survey is pricey but we need to think about the cost. the surveys we've done are done where most of the growth is happening but there's certainly

large areas of the city that are not covered. we need to put a dollar sign it that. we can think that. in fact, it would be a good time to think about that because negotiation next years budget process it come up >> thank you. i will definitely follow-up on that with citywide surveys the importance of that the confusion the sort of why are you picking my area to survey and if we could say okay we're going to do the whole city that would layoff some folks concerns that we hear about quite often. and as many times as we explain the advantages of having the survey done i don't think it's truly understood. i'd like to - i could easily see

us priority tiger's a list first arguing on what we want in there. this is hard to accomplish as one big global so i'd like to see us trying to knockoff maybe not in order by abcs that might help us out a lot. commissioner those are my comments >> tim fry i was going to mention as a way to help the commission prior decides we, let you know how we've addressed those concerns so far to help you understand what needs more work. >> i think along those lines would be what's going to take the most time. so items might bump ♪

priority because of the time and money, of course, >> i want to follow up on commiserates highlands comment about you know from the point of view of the public the h pc is the historic authority so that our that you are view when a project comes in do we have the authority under the ar c to review something if it's not in article 10 and 11. i mean do we have to, you know, change the code to even allow something like that to happen. from the public's point of view they see the commission as having some level of authority above the staff level, you know, in terms of how do we talk about those things but i don't know if we can do that. >> thank you and last comment is on this prioritized list i would

look to spur and the committee if i folks can submit the same what do you think are the tops. any other comments? terrific seeing none, we'll 0 close thatback. >> san francisco prestige commission is back in sessions you left off on the 940 grove street a request for a plan. >> before i begin my premise i have 3 letters of support that i have received from the public and i'll let the commission secretary pass those up to you.

all right. i'm being told there's a signed petition from the square neighborhood association which is being passed up. ? a certify to approve the rehabilitation projects that was originally approved in 2011. the project site is on the corner - the existing lot is part of an existing lot that was subdivided in 2011. this corner lot contains the historic building that occupied the entire lot. it did allow the construction of 3 new buildings that was once the rear yard of the historic building. those buildings have not been constructed but the demolition

has begun on that lot. the work enhance on the site under approval. some of the design modifications that are approved h have been completed without prior approval from the planning department. so this is to legal lists those parts of the project that are completed and to prop further improvements. in the for modification of opposing at the north and east facade as well as wholesale replacement throughout united states building of orientation at the north and east facade and installation of the garage. i described the details in my case report so i'm not going to into the facade details on the pressing presentation.

so i'm going to focus on the parts that staff is recommending change for. i'm going to begun with the garage and the elevation would contain the modifications that staff is recommending for conditions of approval. so in the original proposing proposal the garage was proposed at the basement level of the facade that has the driveway. the modification that's proposed would put the garage at the sub

basement level toward the property line to create american people opening within the historic remaining wall would be 11 feet wide and the door would be 8 feet from the property line which would be in line with the secondary retaining wall. in general, i you think this approach is a better option than the original proposal. that will allow for retention of more of the landscaping and retain more of the fence that the building hearsay historically been set within. so but staff thinks the design could be improved so we have a couple conditions. first to have the new work from the old the staff is

recommending that the proposed remaining walls should be differently. so the historic remaining e retaining wall that flank the garage door should have a smooth finish not to persevere they're part of the original design and to observe the character where even the partner and finish shall be matched. the renovation can be repairs there required so we want to make sure those are done if keeping with the style and a character of the original retaining wall. similarly staff is recommending that the heights of the retaining walls are maintained

in their current condition but the secondary retaining wall will be raised approximately 18 inches to serve as a base for the safety railing and staff is recommending that increased heights is not included in the project the railing is simply installed that. the last conditions in order to minimize this visual obstruction with the facade we're recommending the rail be lighter in appearances while the pickiest style for the roof-decks where security is more of a concern. if the front door we want to see the rails with more transparency. i'm sorry there's one more condition. also in order to down play the

entrance it should about solid wood and have a better finish. those are the the reviews of the garage. i want to a little bit about theed of the east and north facade. so in your paublths in your drawings you do have a sheet that compares both the existing conditions the approved conditions from 2011 and the current proposed conditions that

sheet is a little bit unwe'd likely but you've had a chance to look at that. i'm going to talk about the east facade the staff is recommending the north and east facade. this is part of the work that's been completed. the north and east facade historically has been compromised by additions that were constructed throughout the middle of the century around 1950 for the school that occupied the site for 50 years were when the schools additions were removed it left quite a few areas that required in file on the north facade so the project sponsor choose to remove all the historic citing and the citing from the additions and hoped the

new horizontal woodsideing would be better. staff is recommending there was enough detail on the north facade of the original detailing including the string detail there was enough information we could have completed the restoration of the north facade so we're recommending that approach be for the north facade that the horizontal siding be removed that matches the original detailing. similarly an approach was taken for the east facade. those are additions to the - i'm sorry a good portion of the wall was an original wall. it's been reclad and the detail has been removed at the level

and there's additional detail that was removed from the lower edition. staff recommends those facades go back to the prior condition prior to the project having sorry going back to the preproject status so that the original east facade is roared with all it's original details and the school additions go back to their original design. so i'm sorry if it's a bit complicated i know to have to compare the existing conditions prior to 2011 is a bit

mind-boggling but i'm happy to discuss many of those and the project sponsor is now here to present the rest of the project >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm lou. i rupert project sponsors and owners pat hanson and quincy smith. it's h a n t s. we're before you because the new owners are enthusiastic about the property they bought it with a conditional use and want to

adjust it to their own needs so they made some improvements to the interior to the historic facades. they also bought the building with a ton of building depth violations which people don't often realize but going back to 2001 they were let me just find them for you i want to read it for you. i have a lot of files which document each facade so i'll be going through that with you. let's so here we go. i want to read a violation from 2001 that's 2012 years were the building is in disrepair the roof is falling off and