restoration. as you go around san francisco and look at the city and think about the city i would like to see i would like to see more emphasis on restoration that has been previously. we're only talking about preservation and should talk about restoration of the city resources. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. mike beuller with the san francisco heritage and just to reference the commissioner's comments earlier she was referring to a community summit that heritage convened last june, june 2013 entitled "sustaining san francisco live's history" and invited representatives from various neighborhoods with cultural heritage conservation efforts under way such as japantown,

soma, the bay view, and chinatown to make presentations on challenges they're facing to retain their cultural heritage resources and tools that have been proposed or utilized in those communities to help stem the displacement of social heritage resources. in that -- during that summit attendees and our panelists suggested a range oftives, whether financial, regulatory, or process driven incentives that could be incorporated into the implementation measures when this particular objective is flushed out in the future. i believe we're on your -- heritage is on the calendar for the august 20 meeting to present a report that is really an outcome from the community summit that not only summarizes the incentives discussed during that session but provides a number of case studies from all

over the world to illustrate what other cities of doing to grapple with the displacement of traditional and cultural uses, so hopefully that will be instructive and can be informative are are for development of the preservation element. my only comment with regard to this particular objective is i feel there could be a definitional problem throughout the various policies under objective six it refers to historic resources. it is not clear whether the definition of historic resources as used here is intended to reference the ceqa definition of historical resources or a broader concept that encompasses what we have been discussing as social heritage resources here. we believe it might be helpful to

incorporate broader language into the objective or under policy 6.1 for example or all of the policies that refer to various incentives to state something like promote the use of incentive for the cultural and preservation of these social heritage resources. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am from the victorian alliance. i know we're going to go into these things more in-depth next month but clearly when we're talking about efforts to increase awareness, outreach, and education and incentivizing conservation these are elements that are extremely important and dear to our hearts. when we look at in particular how very often some small projects don't

take on rehabilitation of their facades because they think it's too cumbersome or there aren't enough incentives and the process on smaller projects is that without planning going to designated review, which really is very infrequent, there aren't many tools to encourage tackling that beast. what we don't want things to be owner some for the homeowner there is are a number of instances where small buildings are converted from two to three units. you see the profit potential that's in it and yet there are no triggers that you're gutting out the entire interior of a place. you're making it three unit instead of two unit yet you allocated nothing as a community

benefit to restoring the basad, -- facade so incentivizing, it is really both carrot stick. whether there are financial incentivetives, whether there are regulatory standards, which set triggers if you're doing this degree of renovation you have to at least approach and look at and coming up with a plan for addressing the other as a community benefit. we think these should be included. the goal really is to see that as much restoration and rehabilitation occur and especially in that sort of gray area of the smaller projects. we think that there's room to improve the position of very strongly encouraging it for the developers as they enter these projects. thank you. >> thank you. is there anybody else who has public comment? seeing none we will close public

comment. come back to the commission. any additional comments about objective six? >> just my ears may not be functioning as they did in prior times but seems to me we've had at least two or perhaps three people comment that things would be flushed out and may i suggest that flushed out is to get rid of and fleshed out is to make complete. i don't know how the transcript will come out but nevertheless. >> are there -- commissioner? >> yeah, i just want to say that i think it's good to make more explicit when talking about historic resources that we're talking about the panna play of resources and mr. beuller mentioned that which i think is important. >> commissioner. >> yeah, i have three comments,

questions, overall. i don't know if we're done with objective six or not. >> any other comments about objective six? >> yes. i wanted to make one comment on the last speaker talking about the facade restoration and incentives. in ada there is a state law about the 20% rule if you're under a certain threshold of renovation you have to add 20% to that to deal with ada improvements, so it's an interesting idea and i don't know what the implementation would be but it's an interesting idea about if you're doing significant changes -- i mean it's one thing if you're just doing kitchens and baths but if you're doing significant changes there is beyond and above those you have some requirement to the public realm to do improvements there so i think it's an interesting idea. it doesn't apply to

objective six per se but the planning department in looking at long-term goals how you implement this and maybe it is an implementation measure. that's an interesting idea. thanks. >>i would just say i agree with mr. beuller and the commissioner's comment about being specifically about the historic resource, term, in the policy of 6.one, generally in this section to -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah. so i think we can talk about overall comments. >> okay. >> commissioner. >> i have three. as part of the next steps we're going to have an opportunity to review all nine objectives and the draft text for that. will that 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] >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance subcommittee meeting for wednesday, july 23rd, 2014.