frustrating. i'll say in our defense that we have literally more projects at one time than the department has seen in our history an ate unprentsd position. 5 years ago before the recession we were at a one year wait for review for environmental projects today it is three or four months. we're in bettered shape then we were that's a lot better our cost system has improved we need to continue that improvement >> commissioners any others questions? okay open this up for public comment any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. bring it back to the commission. this is informational so any other questions. no okay we've move on.

>> that will place you on item 8 for the case the 2013 open space element up to date known as rose this is an informational presentation only. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm suing sue with the department staff. and as was mentioned we're going to give you an up to date on the recreational space element. so we've been doing this for quite awhile the process started in 2007 i'm going to go over the process in a minute. the first draft was out in may of 2009 and in july of 2010 we had a review.

the second draft ways out in 2011 and the final draft came out last november. so as i mentioned we've been doing this for seven years so there's a lot of community process. we started with a task force that was an in violation by the mayor and there were a number of working groups in the task forces. after that we went into a community base we worked with 27 groups with the parks hallway lines and had focused groups and went in the advisory council committee we went to the recreation & parks commission and the planning commission we've been there five or six times and we've had industries

meeting and one-on-one meetings. so just to kind of step back a little bit and explain what is the general plan and what's it's role. we have 10 elements currently in the plan and various other plans like housing this is an example of transportation and community safety and this is another proposed element. this is an element that it was done in 2006 and the high level documents set a vision around 20 years this is out-of-date par r they're not planning codes or law everybody wants to get specific and interpret words in different ways and make it as good as they can but sometimes,

it gets stuck in the process and it can be really challenging to make the differentiation between code and policy. this is kind of starts the vision and what happens is you'll see something in the 1986 that was the golden gate plan. it was done in 9 process to complete that process. so just going to give you a high-level overview. this came out of the process over little seven years the main themes one of the first and biggest themes i think is that people want to make the most of what we have we have a robust

system but that can beal kinds of ways there's no prescription in this document. it says a lot of spaces need a lot of different things and each space should be looked at carefully to make sure it meets the needs of the community. the next thing and this is an update. this is called a priority - where we fiscal our resources. this is the update this is only the 2010 the map is from the 17980 consensus so it's been channeling the recreation & parks commission units their own but we don't have a vision it's

out-of-date and it happened in 1980. so a new objective and esteem e theme we've heard is open space that wasn't your traditional open space thinking about the street and alleys and plazas different kinds of spaces how do we make this part of our network. there's a dedicated supplemental to this space. objective 4 is the bio diversity and a department sustainability. this is a theme we've heard through the city not just the designated the rec and park department they designated nature areas this is how do we bring nature into the city, how

did we think about nature thorough out and this is now being the internet is being adapted and that looked how to create habitat throughout the city. finally, we have a brand new objective how to engage the community how do we work and figure out how to make those projects the best they can. the intention we were making sure we had a guiding envisions for engaging the community. and finally, something that's obviously trying to figure out how to fund all of this. the maintenance of parks is a big issue that could about and funding the maintenance the rec

and park department rely on general funds so we're trying to get creative and this perpetrates some ideas and puts them out there none of them you have to do it sets forth some ideas to consider. so this is a quick snapshot what did we do since the last it sdraft maintaining our cars and recreation is important maintaining our private open spaces and privatization concerns. sustainability we tried to incorporate all those concerns into our latest draft. but i would is i horde in january this idea of preservation and parks it was the first time in seven years it's come up so we've thought about some drafts and policy

language we could include. this is just an idea of kind of our first look you're getting first look is implemented the historic feature and responding to contrary needs and we'll consider incorporating the needs of sustainability techniques into the plan the sustainability. tim and i brought this up i wanted to mention the preservation policies and the preservation element which i'm going to turnover to tim for a quick update. commissioners tim freeway i don't want to deviate from the told me before you but i wanted to talk about 9 preservation

element where that stands and many of you don't know or aren't aware of the draft preservation element for the city. the city contracted with architecture resources group to prepare the element and in 2008, 89 it went through reviews with the prejudice board and all the changes were incorporated and at the end of 2008 the city charter was amended and now we have the preservation historic commission. at that time, we realized that a pretty substantial of environmental review will have to occur because we didn't have funding at that time or subject years but the good news is in the most recent budget we weren't able to talk about we

have proposed funding to revive did discuss about the prejudice element and start engaging this commission and the public on what that preservation element should contain. we will start having conversations and we'll talk 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 stee