about the spovp and maybe we'll be able to have that broader decision but we see the logical reason to add that to the open space element. so if you have any questions about the prejudice element i'll be happy to answer them after susan presentation. we shared the draft presentations with architecture heritage in san francisco. i see that ms. smith from the architecture heritage is in the audience i don't know if her comments represent the architecture group but she can respond to the draft policies. with that, i'll let sue take over and if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> so to kind of wrap up up the

schedule for this element. we're proposing to close the commentary we've extended that and to include the comments we are going to have a couple of for hearings on the park commissions and i think that's on the 27th. so let me know if you have any questions or comments. >> right off the timing of this being adapted and the preservation element i mean, there's no way the prejudice element is going to be ready how does that get into this. >> that is one of the general plan elements there will be 8 preservation elements but there

will be a much more thorough and historic preservation. >> what's our ideal timeline getting it done and approved. >> great question tim fry department staff in the 2014 - 2015 staff we'll start engaging the public and the process conservatively it will take a couple of years. along with the recreation and upper design elements there are friendly policies that are in all the elements so there isn't anything to preclude us to adding anything to what we're drafted and showing you today. it's metrological that we can start the conversation or put some policies in this element but have a more robust set of policies related to cultural

landscapes in the preservation process >> i'll definitely is that within the resources within the city you have only two sentences talking about preservation doesn't do it justify. my other commissioners, comments or questions >> just to follow-up on that is that part of the budget we just saw. >> maybe director ram knows it is about $150,000 maybe it's include. >> there's a number of it included and that's included in that list. >> any other commissioners. commissioner johnck >> well, i have some comments by are we having any public comment? >> yes. we are. >> i'll wait.

>> commissioner hyland. >> as far as cultural landscapes is that more appropriate here? >> i think that's a great question for the call of the commission to have with the department it's metrological to have some policy preservation policies here if you think we should expand those would he do love to hear our feedback and with the prejudice element that's preservation landscape. >> correct. >> i think it's important to remember that the idea was that the full range of activities be addressed in the preservation element. we're talking about the open space element so whatever policies you feel are important

to incorporate i think it's important to incorporate here but there's a whole range of activity you've discussed >> we'll see that on the next agenda so we'll have time to get a robust statement in there. >> it's not? >> no, because they're trying to get it qualified and sitting here today, we don't have enough input from the stakeholders it's now coming to us and being pushed it for the record so i want this on the next agenda. >> we're going to meet on the 19th. >> okay. okay. >> do you want to do any public comment? >> yeah. any other questions or comments from staff. we'll open this up for public

comment. ms. howard >> good afternoon commissions. katherine howard from the prejudice alliance we're here today to ask you to submit written comments on the rose. i'm glad you've read it my obviously i think that you can take more time. there's no deadline open this it's not like a housing element. and i'm insured by my former board of supervisors president aaron crossing to the charter code in response to ms. x lines process i want to tell you that words matter yes we're fighting over words but this is the

annoyance we're looking at and people will make decisions on what this document says. on the screen we've seen the landscapers and i'm happy to see that there's widen room with balancing for contrary needs you run into that all the time be very careful of wiggle room and please include cultural landscapes in your comments. i've e-mailed this letter from our comment group on the golden gate matter of the plan there is the opening of the door to our buildings on the square parkland. we want the rose to encourage the city to have new land for the project and second to the

golden gate master plan it could open it opening up for reversions. we are concerned that we want to add section 4. all proposals must conform to the design and intent of the park and protect the landscape as in the golden gate park master plan objective 2 policy a landscape preservation and renewal and that's attached. your comment group includes many individuals who volunteer their times on parks i'll give you the names. just to let you, you know, judy and linda the chair of the prince act on the coalition of

open space twinkie it's and a mr. stevens and dennis with the take back our parks and chris shaufrtd >> any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> hello, i'm desiree with the san francisco heritage. i think was mentioned our policy committee neither has looked at the element and i would welcome for time to have to look and examine the element and have more recommendations. i want to offer a couple general comments. bans what we've reviewed there's too much emphasis on modern missing slarp and there should

be more language on the existing fabric. we would welcome for time and hope to come back again. >> thank you. any other member of the public seeing none, public comment is closed. and bring it back to commission. this is informational >> i want to make a couple of comments on this entire topic. i'm excited about seeing the historic preservation proposed policies with the recognition as comments have been made about recognizing the nature heritage as a vital part of our history. and the integration of cultural anal in the discussion of preservation. so i definitely support this tra

trajectory. i'm interested in looking sdlo through - so that was this and then the staff report that we received in our packet and for instance, i have a lot of ideas how to add, you know, this philosophy about adding the kurlth and a objectives i haven't written i've made personal notes since this is informational i'll proficient more time to look into this and i want the staff comments on the rose comments that was very well put together and how we might make recommendations to the report. so those are my 3 areas of comments. yeah. yeah, so >> let's see if i can answer them the last comment about the

rose group we are going to respond to all of the comments we all the comments that we get we have a response and a comment so we'll do the same thing. we've got 6 hundred >> okay wu6. i was going to say too i know that i'm sure you're aware of are familiar with the landscape program of the national parks service which is a volunteer program and there's been only 5 hundred surveys done o in the united states and many of them open cemeteries. there are many industrial landscapes in the country is differ vitality attention for the nature landscapes in which their embedded >> maybe i'll consulate with

tim. >> commissioner did you get everything answered. >> yes. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i think it would be great if we could see this again. one thing under the proposed language we need to have a section on identifying cultural landscapes because this project says the historic features but there's it seems like there should be a identification of the features what they might be and then i don't think the way the language is worded implement proicht treatment while responding to the treatment it applies that you have to do both all the time and you can have something about preserving the historic features. you're not responding to some need because it's a historic feature that is important that

language doesn't need to be in there because you can preserve nature without responding to a need >> those are good comments. i know that mar brown is working on the golden gate park designation so she's that probably collected some good stuff that can be part of this as well. i enjoyed and learned a lot. i want to see your response back to the specific areas per particularly i'm interested in the defines of culture or cultural is not defined so i want to take a look at that. thank you commissioner pearlman >> my comment follows up we do need to pay attention to the

fact we evolve and there are new needs you know that couldn't have been anticipated when golden gate park was designed. there wasn't a lot of skate boarding happening then. we need to balance the historic preservation with current needs and future needs is something that's inherit in the review identifying and reviewing of the promotions that happen i agree with the commissioner. >> my last question is november 2013 comes along and this element is released what happens at that time. >> when. >> when this is approved. >> what happened. >> february 27th. >> we're probably going to push that date out. >> what happens. >> it goes to the board of supervisors.

>> then what happens. >> here's the thing we're coming along too years from now, maybe but this is going to be in motion what's going to be in motion i mean basically we're adding on this later does that have any change. >> of the rose. >> why don't we have a robust section. >> honestly like i said, we just heard the historic preservation we heard about it in january. we all agreed to include that but we've been working for seven years. the girl here is what can we include here for sure and don't forgetting forget we've even if

we're adding another element for the historic preservation if that makes sense >> not really but i'm done. >> anyone else? okay. thank you we'll move on. we are going to take a 5 minute break. >> this is the regular meeting for wednesday, february 5, 2014. i want to remind members of the public to turn off electronic deploys. we left off on case 2013 at the 300 polk street requests for a permit to all the. good afternoon. i'm with the department staff. before you say a major permit

for stockton street which is a category 5 in the conservation district that has 5 hundred and 50 square feet building context with both grade components. between stockton and suzette take care street an overview vatd street. that includes the levy store. it will be for a downtown plan including outlined in the code and by the zoning administer for the various for the transparency requirement of planning code. those cases are scheduled to be heard at the joint hearing tomorrow february 6th.

the proposed promise will replace the plazas. the proposed group of work includes reconfiguring the triangle building holding the street corner and the back faces a narrow wing to the west along post street. reducing the height from 4 to 2 stories that will have stainsless steel framing and it will separate the butt glass panels into the street facade. it will have cast stone. reconfiguring the plaza into a rectangle and renovate it with latin-american and paving. raining and relocating the foundation and the fountain will

be moved to the center of the stairs on stockton street. to assist the review we brought it to the architecture body for review and comment on they're meeting on december 4th. the commissioner westbound competency with the proposed design but concerned about the compatible of the street facade. the full steel members were introduced into the design the base were for the two main entrances. this emphasis on the end bay is a comeional design.

the steel framing articulate the facade and break both into bays and atrocities a rhythm to the facade and expresses underlying contrary manner that is in con forbearance to the requirement of earlier 11. to address the ar c comments regarding the structure the revised structure hazed stairs and landing. to subtleness it came palatable. they have less horizontal complexities. the proposed project extends to the property lines of posting and stockton street and

reenforce the structure. to a hallow building at the corner will be acceptable it is based on the corner square they range in height from 3 to 5 stories and to the west is the only historic this on the street. within the broader street the structures range differently and their adjacent to a much taller buildings and the proposed structure a appropriate per overall it matches and it consistent with the buildings throughout the district and it in compliance with article 11. while there's no specific requirements in the historic district the proposed fashion of the building will be comfortably the capability of the district

with the patterns within the district address the proposed stone zoning will be compatible with the design the photo will be carefully removed and protected during construction. when the site is finished the foundation will be moved in a manner that matches the standards. staff has determined the proposed work will, proposed and within article 11 as the new structure will be comparable with the design as sections 6 and 7 of appendix b it will not damage the character of the district. the department has received xhments comments from the services united workers west

expressing opposition and they have received a letter in support. the staff preliminary recommendations for the approval that concludes my presentation. thank you >> any questions for staff before the sponsor begins? commissioner matsuda >> i have a question thank you very much for your presentation. i had a question about this do we ask about legislation? that's referred to in our materials on page 3 for foil number 0359 pending legislation before the board. it goes on to explain what this is why didn't this piece of legislation every dom come before the board. i had to go to the planning

commissions agenda to get the summary and as noted i made a comment about where the h pc is on there could you explain that to me why this commission was never aware and never formerly informed of this legislation when it clearly fits into what we do >> i'm going to defer this to those city attorney. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the deputy city attorney. under the carry it says referral to following matters be submitted to the written report regarding the facts on the cultural resources. it has a list the first item is the resolution of ordinances concerning the historic

resources. as i understand the ordinance has ann a definition of the amendment it allows for the demolition of non-performing structures in the district only as they don't effect the historic resources. so within the scope it is outside of the charter. i'm sorry so i'm - >> so the pending legislation that we - was part of the planning commission document this does incorporate the conservation district does it not it incorporates several buildings. the conservation district we're talking about has specific buildings within that district >> the amendment that ordinance is intend - >> the amendment to this

ordinance. >> doesn't apply as a whole it permits don't guess only inasmuch as the demolition won't effect historic resources. so it's basically an ordinance that by itself won't he effect historic resources. that's the intent and that's why it wasn't brought before you. i don't have the ordinance in front of the of me but i can take a look at it to know what specific section it is referring to >> have it. >> commissioner wolfram in the meantime. >> i have a question for staff. in your analysis the analysis seems like it is all about the

design and is it the 4 design or did it come later and it came later staff has not in fact, the 4 design option that was permitted by the project sponsor in your package >> it's the preferred solution. >> they'll describe what - >> they've not exempted on that. >> commissioner pearlman >> i have a technical request about the bar building that's referred to in 3 places as 3 materials as cast stone and on page 6 indiana limestone and on another page it's another material. >> i believe that the cast stone that resembles indiana

line. >> so one the city attorney's. >> basically, the ordinance just talks about the district the ordinance is written as effecting any non-secondary structures in the c-3 r downtown zoning district. so if you narrow this down to the parcel then in the report it has been advised for this particular structure >> i understand that. >> and in the commission what the commission is to accomplish on page 7 of the draft ordinance it will allow the demolition and reconstruction only if the proposed removal and construction will come to several things.

it says in the terms it doesn't apply in the historic district it it were affected >> okay sponsor if you folks want to get going on our presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners