also include implementation measures or will that be in two separate -- >> shelly [inaudible]. yes the complete document are the objectives and policies and implementation measures. that's the way the draft currently exists and we would keep it in that format so i think when we bring the complete document to you implementation measures will be a section. >> and do you have an idea when that will be? is that after the -- [inaudible] >> that's a great question. we're going to kick off our public comment period in early september. we will have an open house at the old mint we hope but we're working on that, and we don't want to finalize the document until we have gone through a thorough public comment period so we will start working on our edits during the public comment period because it's going to be a lot of work and it will require that amount of time but i don't think we're bringing it back for a really

full review until probably the very end of the year of 2014. >> get more public comments before you actually do the draft text? >> that's right. that's right. >> so two other -- are the context statements going to be incorporated into the preservation element? have you guys thought about that? >> we have thought about it. there's a concern that literally incorporating historic context into the element makes it a huge document that would require updating every time we add to our historic context. the way the policies address historic context now it assumes that the historic context is one document but in reality the way we approached it is in a piecemeal fashion. if we change that approach then it becomes more realistic that it would become part of the preservation element

but as is i think it would create too much process around adding to our and building our historic context so i think we prefer to have it as a separate document that gets adoption separately from the preservation element. we would retain some historic context information in the preservation element but my initial thought was we would focus on the history of historic preservation and policy within the city and that other aspects of the city's history would be addressed as well. >> just as referring to other policies and making sure they're updated incorporate within these elements reference to the context statements. i haven't thought about where that would go but somewhere, and last have you thought about how the goals and implementation measures are going to be summarized? are you

envisioning a matrix where there are implementation timelines or responsibility assigned to who? >> in the current form it's simply a bulleted list. the implementation measures are a bulleted list but we would like to get more creative with the graphics of the document in general and we haven't started that conversation yet but i welcome any ideas and if you see examples that other cities or jurisdictions have produced i would love to see them. >> so the city of glendale and the city of santa monica. they're different, they're not the same but address in a matrix form. >> okay. >> any other overall comments objectives? do you have any closing remarks? >> no. i don't. i will be back august 20 and we will be

talking about objective seven through nine. we can talk at that point when you would like to schedule any further hearings. if you would like regular updates as we're going through public comment as i will give you updated on the public outreach scheduled. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, that places us on item 8, case number 2014- 0860u at 7272 vallejo street. request for review and comment. >> good afternoon commissioners. preservation staff. i am here to present on the burr house at 7272 vallejo street in the pacific heights neighborhood and prepared for the building owner. this is presented to you in the capacity as a certified local government the city and county of san francisco is given the opportunity to comment on questions to the national

register of historic places. any comments that the commission has will be forwarded to the office of historic preservation. the byrd house is a three story single family dwelling constructed in 1878 and empire influences and constructed for former -- by former san franciscan mayor edwin burr for his son. the property is located in an intact garden setting and including two other buildings and a cottage constructed circa 1878 as a workshop for edwin burr and a garage constructed between 1913 and designated a landmark number as an outstanding victorian mansion. this commission approved a mills act contract for the property and scopes of

work for the main house the cottage and the garden. the byrd house is locally significant and eligible for the register under criterion c and entact residential property located in a dense urban environment. they identified significance. it begins with the construction of the house and ends with the construction of the house's porch which say feature that gained significance in its own right. the department agrees it is significant under the krie for a extremely rare example of this type of resident in an intact garden setting but to include the cottage and garden as contributing part of the property. i would like to note that staff was in contact with the consultant that prepared the report and the decision to exclude the rear cottage and garden was made at the behest

of the state office of historic preservation and felt it didn't contribute to the second empire architectural theme and the garden that has been landscapes no longer has sufficient integrity to contribute to the property and staff disagrees with the state office of historic preservation. the rear cottage was constructed as a chemistry workshop for him and has a relationship to the property. the yard and architecture is consistent with the out buildings of the era and similar that the garden should be a contributing feature as its presence convase the association with victoria design and aesthetics. other departments wrote comments in the case report and related to the rear cottage's construction and significance. it is my understanding prior to the

meeting the consultant did make some of the minor revisions and revised draft for the state office of historic preservation. i would like to mention that the property ownership is not present today but i received a letter from the owner expressing support for the nomination. this concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer questions. >> does the applicant have presentation or comments? okay. thank you. bring it to the commission. comments or questions? commissioner. >> yeah. well, i would like to congratulate you and the staff of the planning department for coming up with a recommendation to include the cottage and the garden, and i am interested in if you looked into further utilizing criteria b and d -- well, associated with historic events and/or potential yield

information as part of the supporting evidence for the nomination. there's no question that it meets the criteria and i am not debating that at all which i think is wonderful, but i think -- i am interested in, and i want to point out that this whole discussion about preservation and the preservation element we of increasingly discussing the interdependencies between humans and the built environment and the landscape and the context in which our buildings sit, and the social and cultural heritage, so and of course the national register when it was first set up and the criterion hasn't quite gotten to where we are at this point in the preservation discussion, but i think irrigation of the city of san francisco, the spring valley water company, has had a great

influence on the city and actually a whole lot of history around irrigation, garden, landscaping, how the garden was -- we agree we don't see the evidence of the historic planting today but i guess my point is this is -- the additional criteria has the potential to yield information about environmental sustainability and to those kinds of things and that may mean a whole additional report which of course is not the focus of this discussion, but i just thought these would be appropriate comments to bring to the attention if they're rejecting the original ideas on this were kind of shortsighted. >> thank you for that comment. the nomination does leave up the question and this was a question from ohp that the cottage might be significant under criterion a with the development of the

pacific heights neighborhood. staff felt looking at the history of san francisco, and particularly large ornate mansions like this there are frequently the out buildings and the fact that they're vernacular or small is not the issue. it's the fact the rear cottage was born at the same time of the house and part of the same complex and used by the original owner. >> commissioner. >> i think it's interesting that you see that because mr. zelman who was sitting behind you has a landmark house and in the back is a staple that is not a ornate building. i know he's been trying to change it for the last years and your argument is correct. it's consistent with how the projects were developed. my question is is the property -- i didn't look at the size of the property but

is the property large enough if some future -- if the garden were not included as a contributor to the property and some future owner wanted to split the property there is another space to be developed as a separate parse and he will a good argument to make sure it doesn't happen. >> >> understood. i don't know the dimensions of the side yard. looking at san francisco you can build a building in any size lot. >> but there are now guidelines for that. >> and also the question going back to the original landmark designation which specifically calls out the garden as an important feature of the property so that also may be a question for this body where such an issue to be raised. >> no. i am agreeing. i applaud you for taking on shipo to say this is actually part of is and is significant with how the house is cited and the

development of the properties and pacific heights and all of that. >> commissioner highland. >> i read that the property is smaller than it was. >> it is. it was smaller and from valerio to green street and other other properties associated with the family, if you will, on the lots. one the lot was split in 1971 so the property there is a 1916 cottage constructed for the daughter of edwin burr and a photographer and that might have significance with association with her but it is far enough away in its construction from the original house and property that staff feels it's logical not to include that within the nomination and there's within that rear lot there is another property, the two daughters of

edwin burr commissioned a residence on the property. it was completed in 1940 and just outside the period of significance and should be judged for its individual importance. >>i would completely agree that the cottage should be included in the nomination. i am wondered on the site and the extent of the site knowing it's already been reduced framing it in such a way that the boundaries of the site bring into the setting and the integrity of the resource since the garden itself has been completedly -- has no integrity left but the setting within the house within the boundaries of the garden are necessary in order to maintain integrity of the house. >> i know that it's my understanding that ohp feels it contributes to the setting of the house which gets to the

same issue but they didn't want to call it out as a contributing feature which in some respects i understand the logic. it has been relandscaped. it's no longer a designed historic landscape. at the same time the early pictures show the garden sitting there. there was irrigation for it and felt it was an important feature so i feel even in the state today which goes to your question it's integral and crucial to preserve the overall integrity of the property. >> any other comments, questions? i had one regarding the interior so in the narrative summary it just mentions that there is the interior doesn't have integrity except for the third floor family room and i guess that is where the sky light is too which has the paneling and the original case work, and i am wondering if

that might not be mentioned in the significance. seems like the third floor is a pretty significant space being so intact. yeah, scoot light and the paneling of that room. >> is that a [inaudible] light in the room on the second floor? >> [inaudible] >> hard to get light down there otherwise. >> any other comments before we take public comment? move to public comment. is there any public comment on this item? if so please come forward. state your name. >> good afternoon commissioners. mike beuller with san francisco heritage. i'm not going to speak to the contributing features, but i did want to talk about heritage's relationship with the owner, and his future plans for the property. we were contacted by the owner when he was considering purchasing the

property and i had a long conversation with him about potential incentives that would apply to this property, and i have to mention that he's -- he and his wife have been a wonderful steward of the property and followed all of our recommendations. this particular nomination was commissioned in anticipation of a future easement donation to heritage to further protect the property really in perpetuity so i wanted to mention that. i think that's important for the commission to understand. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none we will close public comment and bring it back to the commission for a resolution. >>i move to recommend adopting this resolution in support of the nomination of the byrd house. >> second. >> with the additional

comments. >> [inaudible] >> do we want to add -- >> well, -- >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. >> [inaudible] >> that's all right. >> [inaudible] >> well, i don't know. i think -- i mean if the commissioners agree whether comments are appropriate related to other criteria that this may add to its value. that application of the criteria should be considered and the nomination is supporting documentation. now, if you agree with that that would be -- i guess it would be a general comment and it would give further support to what we're saying about the cottage. >> maybe we should ask the applicant or him if there are suggestion of additional criteria. >> we can certainly add a statement that the nomination leaves open the question about under criterion a for the cottage. i think that would be

fine. i don't think that the report did look at significance under criterion b. edwin burr was a successful chemical engineer but no indication he was anymore than that and had a dramatic impact on the development of the city so i wouldn't go with "b". under d and if there are elements of the chemistry workshop that was still there and tell us something important that might be a question. generally d gets used more for buildings in ruins or archaeological resources and used the most. >> yeah, i know. >> and i don't think b or d are necessarily important but i think we certainly could add a comment about that. >> okay. i think that would be good. >> and the interior comments. >> and the interior comments that i marked out. >> and the support of --

>> that's right. part of the resolution. who is making the motion originally? >> yes, i agree with those. >> yeah, and i will second the motion. >> so -- catch that. >> can we repeat the amendments ? >> we're adopting the findings -- we're adopting this resolution that is before us with the additional -- with the addition of suggesting that criterion a could be looked at for under the significance -- >> [inaudible] >> that it's left open -- >> under criterion a. >> under criterion a. that the interior of the third floor should be considered in the significance section and was there another comment? i think that was it. >> thank you. okay. commissioners there is a motion and a second to adopt a resolution in support of the

nomination to the national register with the addition of suggesting criterion a before the reviewed -- the third floor be considered and that's it. great. on that motion commissioner. >> yes. >> commissioner. >> yes. >> commissioner. >> yes. >> commissioner. >> yes. >> commissioner. >> yes. >> commissioner vice president. >> yes. >> so moved commissioners. that motion passes 6-0. >> okay. i believe that concludes our hearing and the hearing is adjourned thank you. [gavel]you.

>> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ in landing a contract with the sfoifk is pretty champ but now with the opened contracting center visitors can get opportunity at the new state of the arc facility and attend workshops and receive one-on-one technical assistance and learner what you need to become a primary contractor or what information to be a subcontractor and a created bed public commission it will help

people to assist people to compete for and performance open city contract a lot of small businesses do have the resources to loblth the opportunity so one of the things we wanted to do was provide ways to access contract >> access to the plans spiefkz and a data place basis ease contracting opportunity and funding or capital training. this is and other documents that needs to be submitted. to compete is a technical skill that it takes to win a scheduling for a popular to you can win a professional services job or how to put together a quote it's all those technical pieces. looking at the contracting assistance center is our touch point with we get the people to

come and see the planning specks and later than about projects earlier is he get training so you're ready to go arrest hello engineering it has all the tools that a contractor small or large can come here. i can't say enough about the center it's a blessing. we do business all over the country and world and a place like the contractor center to identify the business in san francisco >> the reality is you need training and that's what the center is here to train and make you better qualified to go work with the city and county and to be successful at the end. >> that will give people the

competitive edge e edge at receiving contracts with the city. >> we have krafshth services here that help you find out where you need to get the skills forbidding. >> i mean local businesses participation in city projects is a winning factor it helms help the business their local businesses they're paying savings and a property tax and payroll tax and normally adhere san franciscans so their bowing goods and services in san francisco it really helps the economy of san francisco grow so its not only a benefit to the project but to the city. the contractors center is 5

thomas melon circle in the bayview area open 8:30 to 5 welcom