match the pattern texture and finish of the historic board form concrete wall wherever repair or replacement is required. the third condition is that the project sponsor shall install a solid wood garage door with a paint finish similar in tone so the garage door does not call attention to itself. the fourth condition is that the project sponsor shall use the same railing detail at the roof deck and the proposed balcony. and the next that the project sponsor shall submit repair justification for the tile and marble step along with the department preservation staff. the last is that the sponsor shall complete the site visit in order to verify compliance with the project description and the conditions of

approval. so with that, i would like to turn it over to the architects and the property oranges -- owners are here and would like to speak. >> just with two party speaking you have 10 minutes total. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners, my name is louis is stat ner, the architect. our focus is to make the changes to the building. i hope we have put that in a format that is legible and acceptable and we are here to discuss that in detail. i'm here with federico and luke winter my two employees who have been very involved with the details and very involved with the 10 steiners. the painted ladies, the full restoration which is true to the original house and we are the architects of the

pained -- painted gentlemen which is a project you approved. we hope to think we have some sensitivity and would like to present that. we present this facade because of the complexity of the changes. we are very happy to do that. perhaps there are some more important questions that i should ask you if you have before i go into details that perhaps are not interested to you or you wish to proceed. >> because you are on your time. why don't you go ahead and present. >> i realize that preservation issues are not a matter of p be opinion but we have 30 signatures, 30 with me today that would support what we are doing. mr. in gel will take over now. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is federico in gel, i work for

butler architects. if it's okay i will review the changes by elevation on the fourel variations -- elevations to the house. this should be the primarily package. this is the south elevation along grove street. if i can go through the changes from the larger scope changes to the smaller ones. i will start in the lower right hand corner. we have modified the garage entry from what was previously approved in the december 7,

2011, hearing. we feel it's a better configuration for the garage. it's actually subterranean garage in the basement. it's a smaller garage door. the opening is 11 feet. the garage door is about 10 feet wide previously 16-foot garage door was approved in the level above that in the basement level. if you look at the top right hand corner, we made a series of changes to the 1940 addition of the building. if you see that corner that is a small in fill of the notch between the original 1895 structure and the 1980 addition. the decks

were reconfigured slightly. the deck was raised 18 inches from the previous reconfiguration, to support the load of the new deck. if we head towards the front of the house, the entry porch we are proposing to repair the existing steps and landing. there is a decorative tile on the landing as noted. if you go to the corner, lower corner, left hand side we are proposing -- there is a handicap ramp. we will in fill that with a smooth texture concrete from the original concrete. if we turn to the

following page, 8.3. this is the second primary facade. sorry. if we can go to 8.31. this is along steiner street. there is very few modifications here. again, if you start at the lower right hand corner we are in filling the pedestrian ramp. we are modifying the chimney to bring it up to regulation requirements on the upper left-hand corner. some of the smaller things we doing, we are adding vin ules. it was

removed at a date that is not known. we would like to have those back. what i should have mentioned before, an overall what we are doing that has no impact on these two facades is we are replacing all windows with og lugs. the only difference from the original windows is that they are dual glazed windows. now if we go to a.3. this is the rear facade of the house. the east elevation. it is visible from the public right-of-way. most

of this elevation consist of the 1940s edition. we are making a few changes from what was previously proposed and improved. again starting at the top. the top roof deck was raised about 18 inches for structural reasons. there is a little shed roof that is inconsistent to provide overhead for an elevator shaft. we treated this a little bit more utilitarian. so openings and windows do not lineup. one more second. kind of on the lower center, there

is a french door with side lights and a balcony we are proposing. the last elevation which is the north elevation on 3.4 as you see from the shading, they -- this -- elevation was a school style house that resulted from 2011 hearing. some of the changes that were proposed here what was approved. we are mostly rekon figconfiguring -- the utilitarian facade where opening is not necessarily

lined up, but they are in style and size keeping with the over all building style. again, a top right corner, a chimney is reconfigured. the siding was replaced. some of it matching the existing tongue and groove siding is placed on the drop siding. to make-up for that, we extended the belt courses at the front of the house here, 10 feet into this -- elevation. wrapping the elevation on the top left corner a penthouse from the shed roof and from the raised rear roof deck. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> again we are available for questions and you have the

graphics here and i would appreciate any information that you need. >> thank you. >> commissioners? any questions, comments? >> commissioner matsuda? >> i just have a procedural question. that the design modifications were completed without approval from the planning department. why was that? >> because the property owners did not submit permits and proceeded without permit prove with some of the work. some of the work has completed without a permit and the other work is proposed to be permitted. it's noted in the plan which work and have been completed already. some of it is evident in the photos as well. the siding replacement were the primary scopes of the who, that proceeded without

permit. >> okay. >> commissioner highland? >> this is a project that came before us that we did not prove -- approve and we asked for it to come back. >> the windows, does this reflect the windows that were installed without permit or were those being taken out and these put back in? >> these are the windows that were installed without permit. we did a site visit and measured the details of the windows that were installed without permit and they do in fact match the historic windows from a very similar building across the street and they are very similar to what we normally see in double hung frame window openings. the difference is they have a dual glazing and there is a slight intent in the glazing to meet title 24. >> the siding on the north elevation is that also existing where it was

installed without proper approvals, right? this is showing what has been installed already? >> that is correct. the shaded area shows the area of siding which was removed. quite a bit that this facade was removed as a result of taking the 1950 addition from the demolition of the 1950s edition, but the majority was replaced with dual siding. >> much better package. >> i agree. >> because that was a hot topic. even though it was shaded, the ban ding is to keep it and resolve the corner without the others going in. >> okay. any other comments before we do public comment?

seeing none. we'll open up to public comment. we have one speaker card. irma cobb. >> good afternoon. thank you for giving me a chance to speak to this issue. i was here last year when it came before you. i live across the street in the same block. and i have watched the work going on over the several months. i have the same question that commissioner matsuda had as to why this work was even started without a permit and i asked it before and i still have not received any response as to why it was done. we are not dealing with people who have just come into san francisco. all of us know we need permits to make any kind of changes. i do remember when we were here last year the question about the windows came up. windows

seem to be very important in the block because it took me 6-8 weeks to get approval just to change two windows in the front of my house. so i am wondering if this is a precedent that is being set that work can be done without permit and once it is done, then an appeal for approval is then made. so, i am coming to you to ask questions to see if i can get answers on that. i know that other work that has been done not in this area, but in other areas without permit has had to be dismantled or a penalty applied. i understand this is a large project and with that understanding there is a great deal of interest in it both from those who live in the area and those who come to the area. it's a landmark. we all

know that. there are certain things that are expected and required. so i am just concerned that this is something that is being done that is different from what i understand that we do. so i come to you for questions and answers and hope i will get a response from that. thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public wishing to speak on this item? >> i'm ted, former owner of the property and here just 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 poci