again to share my support for what the current owners have done with the building. when i sold them the building, i owned it from 2009 until 2013. it had been used as a school for the previous 40 years and was very run down. the windows were all perhaps the original stashes but in many cases laminated window panes that were abused over the years and oftentimes screwed together from both sides. i know the current owners wanted to get this project completed quickly and to the nice neighbors comments, i believe they have done an incredible job. if you drive by and see the property, it's a landmark and serves the painted ladies and that building and my project next door very well. the work that they have done is beautiful. on the subject of work that they have done without

permits, the approvals that we got here in 2009, were just what we thought was something someone would want. when they got in i imagine they made a lot of changes on the fly and they were anxious to get their family into building. i think with an a little bit of understanding and sympathy to the process they have gone through and acknowledging that what they have done is given us an incredible building for the next hundred years. thank you very much and i hope this passes your approval. thank you. >> thank you, any other member of public wishing to speak? seeing none, we'll bring it back to this commission. we went out there and first they have put in an -- enormous time on the project. thank

you for helping us understand and digest it better . we went out there and they basically in my understanding an opinion got bad advice from the original project team. and have spent a good year plus sort of straightening the project out. this is absolutely we do not take it lightly when people do work without a permit at all. it has come back to us. i will definitely say it is of highest quality when we went out there. and they have made adjustments after mr. kaltsroni went out there. commissioner johnck? >> yes. this is night and day from the project i looked at

a few months ago. it looks beautiful in terms of the changes that were made. but i'm interested and maybe, tim, you can clarify procedures for enforcement because i spent for years in the san francisco bay conservation and was involved in the writing of that and if you do work without a permit in the bay you get a violation and there is a penalty and there is a hearing as a result and sometimes penalties are lowered etc. depending on the circumstances. i would think that this kind of situation would be akin to what i'm familiar to what is being done in the bay. i would be interested in hearing you clarify what the procedures and why there were no

penalties issued for the violation. >> commissioner, planning staff. there's no enforcement as part of the planning department's review primarily because our goal is to achieve compliance rather than to accrue enforcement fees. the project sponsor had been making a good faith effort to rectify or remedy the work without a permit and we had documents on file for some time where we were working with them to achieve compliance. there is no outstanding planning department violation. traditionally if there is a department of building inspection enforcement on the property, my understanding is the permit fees associated with that enforcement is a times by 9 as a way to impose a penalty on that project.

i'm not fully up to speed on whether or not this project has a violation, but shelley kaltsroni can speak to that. >> hi. shelley from staff. there is a violation for siding replacement that occurred and i have not contacted them recently to know how they are going to handle that. they have been waiting for us to finally prove the work. no decisions have been rendered yet. i can give you more information on how we handle this. >> i think that would be helpful to me. and would help the rest of the commissioners as well. thank you. >> thank you, any other member? commissioner matsuda? >> is there a need for us to add another condition to the

conditions of approval to maybe do an interim site visit from the department? rather than just upon occupancy? if there is a concern about compliance? >> tim fry, planning department. i would deserve to the architects to figure what that logical frame would be an a permanent site visit and if the commissioner would like to include that for approval. >> i would like to hear from staff. >> shelley kaltsroni. there is quite of bit of work. if you would alter the condition to maybe tie the inspecting the restoration work as it occurs

at the beginning of their restoration work. i think that's where we would like to see the craftsmanship and materials up close. >> while you are there, one question on the on materials used was the east facing facade and why it was different from the other ones, not that quite visible, but it is. we have a staff request ? >> the sponsor is proposing to use the horizontal cable rail? it's a painted metal horizontal rail and even though it's not a full position of the facade that you would see it and we would rather see it consistent and

our ticket rails above the roof deck. so first design consistency we preferred to see it that way and i believe we've made a condition that i believe it's a condition of the approval that all the railing should be of the same style. if you would like to modify that. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners? >> yeah, i will offer a motion for approval with the condition. i do think it was a good idea of yours for the interim site visit. anything more about the railing? >> it's meant to match. >> that's okay. that would be the only amendment i would make to the conditions that are already presented by staff unless you have others. >> as a comment, i think our

purview is to make sure it's in compliance with the standards and guidelines and it is. some of the work has been accomplished. >> right. >> so do i hear a second? >> yes. >> you did second. okay. thank you. call the roll, please. >> there is a motion and second to approve the project with conditions as amended to include an interim inspection. on that motion, commissioner highland, johnck, matsuda, hasz. that motion passes 6-0. that places you on item 11. item11: t. frye; 4155 575-68222 preservation element - draft preservation element of the san francisco general plan - request for review and comment. the planning department seeks comments on the most recent draft in order to produce a final draft preservation element to bring before the historic preservation commission and the planning commission for endorsement at a sf 111234

>> commissioner highland? >> i don't have to recuse myself. since there is no action that we are approving today i can still participate. if that were to change, i would have to recuse myself. i wasn't aware of the project anyway. >> are they still on? their work was complete? >> their work was completed and it was done by catherine and -- they are not there anymore. >> thank you. mr. fry? >> good afternoon commissioners, tim fry, department staff. as you recall the previous discussions over the budget and your review over the recreation and open space element, the commission asked to dust off the preservation element and bring it back for your review. so i have a short presentation to share with

you. also want to point out that i'm also joined by shelley kaltroni, the planning person who will work on it over the next year and from the citywide division who presented the open space element to you earlier this year. she'll be working on behalf of the citywide division and along with john sway of the citywide division. if we choose to come back to you they will be presenting this information and engaging you on any potential revisions. to start, just to give you a little bit of background on the -- on how we got to where we are today, the presentation is not coming up yet. here we go. so just as a

refresher in the summer and fall of 2007, there was public review and comment on the draft element as commissioner highland mentioned, we contracted with arg for the contract elements in your packet today and included comment that was recorded as part of this effort. you will notice there are a couple shaded areas where arg was seeking this commission and department and planning advice with how to proceed with those comments. once that comment was complete, the landmarks board reviewed the document in november. gave us several other pieces of feedback and then in 2009, we brought the document back to the hpc. as you know the hpc came into being in january of that year. so as a way to get the document in front of you in anticipation of doing the

ceqa review. in 2009 and 2010 we had funding for ceqa review in the element but the funding was eliminated from the economic down turn and budget cuts. the elements instead on the shelf for some time and most recently as you know from our budget discussions we were able to reinstate the funding for that ceqa review in our next fiscal year starting july first. 1st. at this time we felt there are a number of reasons to revisit the document 1 is when the hpc reviewed the document previously we didn't have an adopted article 10 and 11. with articles 10 and 11 and year 25 hearings on the details of those planning code amendments, there is a lot of policy changeers in there that could serve the element and be reflected in the element that we should probably revisit.

also the one other thing with the spur report, the spur heritage task report has a lot of great recommendations that we all agree with can help improve the historic city's preservation program and take those into consideration when we are considering these policies. this is just a refresher. this is part of sue's presentation just to give you some context of the general planning. we have about 10 different elements. the preservation element will be one of those. once it's adopted and as you know these elements are high level visionary best practices sort of document where every decision the department or commissions make or any part of the city of the family makes has to refer back to the general plan and weigh and balance all the priorities and

objectives of this plan with every decision they make. so the goal would be to take some of the policies that are already included in the urban design element, the public safety element that refer to preservation and we can flesh most of those policy out here in a more robust manner with the historic preservation element. this slide here i thought was useful to again give you some idea, the variety of different documents that are guiding planning department and commission review on a day to day basis where i generally like in the general plan to the secretary of the interior planners they are a great mark to work with. they are regulatory. we have to achieve compliance with these philosophical frame works and they don't get into that level of detail when we interpret the secretary of

interior standards and when we are reviewing the project for compliance with the residential design guidelines. i just wanted to again review a couple policies that are already in the existing elements. these were included in your packets as well and i want to share with our review of the recollection and open space element. for the public we have several policies in the housing element. a policy in the commerce and industry element. the majority of them i would say we use them on a regular basis and for approval for permits are here in the urban design element. and as you know these are the policies we all agreed on during our discussions about the recreation in open space element and in particular preservation of landscapes, character defining features and then acknowledging the

inherent sustainable practice of preservation as a green building mechanism. so the preservation element that we have today is broken down into nine different areas. again, knowing what we have through identification documentation, preserving and protecting, making an effort to either landmark those properties or make sure those properties are around for futuren enjoyment, three references and provide some guidance purely on archeological resources which you know the city has an abundance of. four is about application the standards. five is about the professional qualifications of not only this commission but department staff. six is on incentives whether processed or

financial based incentives. seven is education and public awareness and i would go a step further that we should probably add something here about public engagement. and 8 is sustain ability and 9 disaster preparedness. we wanted to start the discussion. the citywide division has looked at the document, preservation staff looked at the document. we feel there are some opportunities to refine some of the language here. with one in terms of usability. we have in place in parts of our program as they were several years ago, the preamble and some of the introduction could be stream lined considerably, this was a background that is better served in a statewide context and not necessarily

as a general plan. applicant standard, we'll probably fine tune these policies. public education and awareness. we've made a lot of improvements in our outreach procedures and i think it's right to memorialize them in this document. sustainability policies, the same thing. we have a very different understanding of the role between preservation and sustainable building practices that could be reflected in the element. there are, 5, i think are some of the bigger ones. there are very broad ranges to ceqa in the element while it's appropriate to reference ceqa, there is direct references to ceqa status that we have no control over that could change from year to year. there is also, i feel a general tone of relying on ceqa as a

preservation alone rather than relying on the preservation plan as our guiding principles how we want to move from it's preservation program and we would move away from the ceqa programming and go with our own with how we want to preserve san francisco. 6, some policy direction on visibility improvement and cultural heritage. we made a lot of great strides with the japan town and hs initiative and cultural and social heritage initiative in west soma. there is plenty of document that could help influences from and really promote those parts of our heritage that aren't really part of the brick and mortar of the city. and also ada,

this commission adopted a policy on how to review accessibility changes to provide accessibility in landmark buildings especially when those properties are city owned. that could be reflected as a policy in the element as well. so, again, there may be others, but this is again to start the discussion. we may not have time to address all of these today, but we certainly can come back to you over several hears and discuss these in more detail. and here this is the final slide. it's just to give you a rough estimate of what we think the schedule can be or should be. again we have some time i think through the summer to revisit this document with you and of some broader discussions. at that time we also want to develop a public participation plan if we are going to make big changes here we want to bring this back to the public and let everybody who has review it in the past

have another bite at it to give us as much feedback as possible. by the winter we can engage in that public participation plan and we will hope fully have your comments and what we can entertain in a public forum. and in 2013-2014 we'll complete the ceqa review. we'll definitely have to start ceqa this fall and winter to get the process moving because it takes a lot of time to provide that analysis. by spring and summer we have the ceqa review complete. that means we can come back to you with the final draft document. summer of 2015 and as you know, this commission will be endorsing the element and then it will go to the planning commission for actual adoption. after that it will go to the board of supervisors where a board doesn't have authority to modify an element, but they

will sort of endorse it and say yay! or nay to the document. the decision making body will be the planning commission for the document and that begs a broader question if the commission want to have a more robust dialogue. that concludes my comments. i'm happy to take back any suggestions that you have at this time or we can schedule a hearing in the future. thank you. >> thank you. i just think it would be adviceable because it is a big document maybe we can chop it up into parts and hear it over. >> absolutely. >> mr. fry, what would be a good way to segment this? >> since there is 9 basic sections to the document, we could break them into chunks

of three over the course over three different hearings maybe one a month over the summer and come back to you with staff recommendations on rewording on policies and that helps pace the work on the staff's side as well. we can take 3 objectives at a time and bring them for your review. >> commissioners? consensus on that? >> i think that's great idea. >> thank you. i do think that things have changed in

>> please stand by for the city and county of san francisco rules committee meeting is normally canceled and we have one in august. >> commissioners, we good with that? >> yes. >> that's good because i won't be here on the 21st of may. >> okay. thank you. >> can i ask a question? the powerpoint that you just shared with us, is that in our packet? >> it is not? >> can you make that available to us because i like the layout and the priority and the captions. i think i would

like to comment from there and reflect back to this. another request is i would like at least a week or week and a half to review any materials before we actually have the discussion. i did make a ton and i'm sure commissioner hasz has a ton of notes about where we would like to make some suggested edit. >> okay. we can certainly send this to you in advance or with a longer lead time. >> thank you. commissioner highland? >> this is a question for mr. fry. the process of approving the elements in the general plan is that all under the purview of the planning commission? >> to my knowledge, yes. >> that's why this particular element is only here for our endorsement then? >> that's correct. as for one of the guiding documents of this body, i feel it definitely makes sense for us to spend a lot of time on it. that's why we are here today. >> did it change anything

that it's the landmark's advisory board and now it doesn't change anything oovm that's correct. in terms of the general plan, it remains the same. >> commissioner johnck? >> i want to comment and ask the question. i appreciate your presentation and seeing the nesting of all these elements. i guess, i think we've been very sensitized during the discussion of the park and the discussion of the national heritage which is part of the natural hetero -- heritage. i will be commenting on how that is reflected. >> okay. thank you. >> any public comment on this item?

>> i'm desiree smith with san francisco heritage. first we are very excited that this is for the element moving forward and look forward to working with the hpc and with planning department staff through its adoption. with that said our board most specifically our issues policy committee has reviewed the draft and they do have significant reservations and concerns about the current status and direction of the draft as currently written on many of the same concerns raised by the planning department were raised by our issues policy committee. but we are encouraged that the planning department recognizes the need for policy regarding the need for social and cultural and social sources and working a lot on

projects related to social and cultural heritage throughout our city concern the san diego's living history and the title and we have with restaurant projects and many latinos heritage activity and we would like to work with the city for drafting specific language for this policy. secondly, some of the sections of the report we found difficult to read. we think that this element should be approachable and it's currently written is not very approachable. the organizational structure could be approved. the document jumps from topic to topic and doesn't have transition. in many of the existing sections can be used but we think that perhaps the department should setback and look at the outline, start with the outline and then move from

there. lastly we believe that the section title relation to land use planning on page 7 is a key section. it's too short as currently written. item such as the residential design guidelines, garage guidelines, window guidelines are all documents of preservation components that are used daily in the planning process that are not mentioned in the draft given the larger role of that preservation plays in general planning processes in the city. we believe this section in particular should be given more attention. we do have many other comments that i think we can follow up in writing and i will speak with staff in terms of when the time best time for that is. thank you. >> thank you. seeing we have no other public. we'll close public comment. and informational, any other comments from commissioners? no. we'll