occasional we do provide design advice for a variety of projects that are contemporary or historic. that is a matter of courtesy to to kill tate the process -- facilitate the process. >> i was trying to raise the issue of what an expensive courtesy. >> mr. sanchez? mr. sanchez? did you have a comment to make about the e.i.r. process and the exercise that commissioner garcia was -- vice president garcia was asking about? >> i think he will probably want to elaborate further. it is a process that the work is done by consultants that are hired by the project sponsor and alternatives were given. those are alternatives that were

acceptable alternatives and it is not as if they cannot use the e.i.r. as guidance for a future project. it is very valuable to them. it is my understanding that they did not supply a project that complies with the alternatives in the e.i.r. and maybe mr. frye can elaborate further but i don't think it was a waste. >> thank you. the matter is submitted. >> i can start. the -- this issue before us actually -- has several parts to it in terms of how we are going to approach our decision making. the first part deals with what

the existing structure is like and it goes into a little bit of -- what -- historical resource. the existing building in the rear -- portions of it you can see with original fabric in terms of how original stuths were spaced quite far apart compared to modern day construction. you can see it in terms of some of the materials, portions of it however are also clearly identified as things that have been added to the building. there are a number of things that make the rehab of this building quite difficult.

the building has sagged. i don't see any feasible way of jacking the building up to be in alignment, as you can see major portions of the roof and the front facade has definitely sagged and leaned. however it occurred, there is no doubt that the -- significant structural portions of the building are gone. commissioner sugaya and i have not always agreed. though we're pretty good friends. we have not always agreed but in this instance, i would agree with him. i think that the -- in terms of its integrity, based upon the --

secretary of interior standards, is not there. the second portion of it is that the only way one could demolish a landmark is by going through an e.i.r. and an e.i.r. was done. the question then is whether the alternatives or the analysis that was provided in the e.i.r. acts as a -- as a recipe then for what goes into it in the future. in terms of what that development should look like. it is interesting because as i walk through the zellman's main building it is clear that their approach to the preservation of

that existing building, the main building, is quite different than what architects would do. and i don't know their background, perhaps they are architects but compared to most architects, it is different. in the following way. architects have a tendency to develop designs that are -- the term that occurred to me as i was thinking about this case and visiting their site was similar to what was stated by one of the earlier speakers. it is quite fanciful. you could see that in the interiors of their existing build and the design of what they proposed for the carriage house. the question then for us is whether the development of

historically reflective themes comes from a cookbook for those of us who were trained as architects or whether it allows some level of creativity in the eyes of the beholder and the eyes of the creator. it is clear in my mind from the site that the zellmans have their own image and they have applied their own levels of creativity to how they preserve their existing building and it is quite clear that it is how they have applied it to the carriage house. i find that to be appropriate as a designer, i think that the nature of what historical theme we want to reflect or we want to recall does not have to be the same as what was there before. it does not have to be the same

genre of renovations that have occurred to a lot of victorians in our city. and what's most having the the term victorian fantasy. i have amassed quite a library of victorian books from all the cities that i have visited reflective of the houses of those cities and i have never heard victorian fantasy yet. but it has a certain application because i think the zellmans have provided some fanseful reflections in their recall of the historical themes in their existing building. i would support them having the capability of creating something that they feel is appropriate. >> a question for you.

i was leaning the other direction. and to hear you say that -- it was apparent to you that the original -- the original fabric was missing. i didn't see that. i saw a lot of original fabric there. and having seen evidence of what it might have looked like that was taken away and didn't see any, you know, signs of shad others, you know, themes or -- shadows or, you know, themes rst that would have given that away. >> would you like me to perhaps list some of those that i thought were -- >> yes. >> i think the large doors were not original. i think the shingles were not original. >> on the roof? >> yes. obviously the windows. >> right. >> there was no aluminum back in those days. >> the window opening? >> hard to tell. i would say there is possibly a

modification there to at least one or two of them >> they looked very old to me. >> you know the floor is all gone. >> the redwood floor was there. on the main floor. >> a lot of it was gone. the director almost fell as we were walking through it. >> there was a noel the front but other than that, i -- hole in the front but other than that, i saw it as in about the. >> there were portions that were still there. portion s of the exterior wall had been -- and placement in terms of so n terms of some of the studs. >> well, i don't know where i'm going to land, but like said, i was leaning the other direction. and i was -- my view was that there was a high level of integrity of the building and certainly now versus the time as

when it was designated a landmark. because that was -- that was in 1988. and i want to say that i think that the zellmans really are gems of people as one of the public comments was their integrity was spoken about and i'm not saying anything to suggest otherwise but or that i think otherwise but i did -- i did not view it as a shanty. i was actually moved by it. if it were cleeped up and you know, if it were fixed up to be safe and it were not sagging, i think it could look great. ansd even segment aside personal and fed ex and victorian folly and interpretations and whatever, i think what is important is the process. we have a process here where we

have a landmark building. we have a new h.p.c. and they have made a determination and they are the experts along with 11 preservation planners. that it did not meet a certificate of appropriateness standards. pending comments from my fellow commissioners, i'm inclined to support the commission. >> i'm similarly inclined to support the commission. for many of the same reasons. i think the h.p. scrmbings a body that is endowed and charges with the responsibility of making these determinations. they have a, you know, an expertise that -- and standards that they applied and for those

reasons i would be more inclined. i also think that the position of not producing possible other alternatives other than the one -- the project to h. -- planning. struck me as a pretty hard line in being very fixed with the design not having any kind of movement or ability to view another alternative. i quite like the bar and i don't know what that says about me but i think that -- like president goh, i thought the structure maintained a lot of its integrity and that's what i'm thinking now. >> seems as though when we have dealt with issues having to do

with preservation that passed, or that one would -- the board of supervisors, and i'm thinking of -- right now. it seems as though theme to her comments when she makes comments about whether or not something should be preserved or has been, you know, the word integrity has been used over and over and been used dinnerly here to describe the zellmans and they are -- to describe the process that -- the process with integrity. it has been used to describe the building in question. and i don't want to -- describe this as having a high degree of integrity seems to me to be a little bit hyperbolic. you know, just given one fact of how many materials are missing. how the fact that at various

times various people in planning, experts and otherwise have been confused as to what the original function of this building was. it has been called a carriage house. it has been called a barn and later -- the horses were actually stabled across the street. there is certainly confusion about that. it is not as though everyone is in perfect agreement as to what is there and what it looked like. sometimes we though what it looked like because we have poirs renderings or drawings. so someone has got to guess at what it was and tricom up with something that will recall that. they will recall that to the person behind the particular building. i guess someone -- it had been a barn. so one of the renderings is draw

a barn. beyond. don't regret not understanding the alternative. that's mysterious to me. but it seems as though what has happened is someone has said we don't know what was there. you have alternatives. someone to do absolutely nothing. nobody wants it. refurbish what is there and have it be as close to what it was but bear in mind we don't know what it was. we don't know what it would have looked like. we don't know what the materials were. we're going to guess. and that seems to be the position that h.p.c. has taken. historic preservation commission. unless i'm misreading the papers. seems to want this project sponsors -- to reconfigure the

refurbish what is there to be as close to what it originally was again, not knowing what it was. and i don't want to take people's comments. i'm going to refute what they said. that is not my intention. and i don't want to go after the integrity or the credential s of the people on the h.p.c. but they are not necessarily experts. they are people appointed to a commission. it is the political commission. it is not as though they went into the preservation community and they said let's decide -- must be in a position to decide. let's identify 15 of the people's best -- in issues having to do with preservation. let's -- seven members, i think of h.p.c.. let's get them to put those things forward and make sure those are the people who end up on it. i don't think it is processed --

>> in a minute i'm going to ask either mr. frye or mr. -- to come up. >> when sf when i'm through with my comments, you want to ask that, please do. the fact that experts -- that's why you have multiple members of a board because you're going to have to -- but we know right away it is not hard and well-defined exhibitly what should happen here given the vote that was taken at h.p.c. one could probably live more comfortably with the decisions they made had they been unanimous. they were not unanimous. 10 years of process and the process started -- i'm going to guess h.p.c. is years old. the process started some seven years before h.p.c. was in

existence. and one can't help but feel and maybe it is a definition of one's political points of view or something. there is an overlayman, a functionality of things that could well have taken place at planning. planning has processed -- and some of these remarks have to do with the facts that this is the first time h.p.c., an issue that is come to us. i guess basically i feel as though the process lacks some integrity. and feel definitely that a certificate of appropriateness should have been granted based upon their own standards. having to do with dinchings. having to do with the fact that it would not be identified being the same historical period. at any rate, it concerns me greatly that the votes are not there and do whatever you want to. >> sir, it is my understanding

that unlike our com where we, in fact, maybe are not pinted to particular chires particular expert's, that the h.p. scrmbings a different sort of body. mr. frye or mr. sanchez, could you enlighten us? >> each of the members of the historic preservation commission are preservation professionals. we have two preservation architects. a preservation planner. an architectural historian and an historian who is considered an expert in american history in san francisco history. there is one at large seat and that is occupied by commissioner matsuda who has some preservation experience at the state level. >> thank you. >> was there any controversy about the person who holds a seat? >> are you referring to

commissioner johns? >> yes. >> i'm not sure then what commissioner you're -- >> ok, yes, that's who. there is only one person. >> there was some controversy regarding commissioner johns, however the board of supervisors believes that he is adequately qualified to hold that position. >> thank you plrks frye. you confirm my own aassumptions around the qualifications of that commissioner. >> if i may make one more statement. >> please. >> it is ok for disagreements on the project. the impressions we may each have on a particular potential or its conformance to certain standards and i fully accept that. what bothers me is the fact that we have gone through 10 years

and i guess problem solver in me was bothered by that. would you consider a continueance to allow them to see if there is one last opportunity for them to come together in something that boast parties may not fully like but will find acceptable? >> because if we -- they start over again. >> if we uphold the department then the commission then they start from scratch, we have been the e.i.r. so they are shaking their heads no. so mr. frye, could you please? >> who is shaking their heads? >> mr. frye was shaking his head. >> just to clarify, the e.i.r. was only required because they were demolishing a landmark building. if they chose to use the reconstruction standards, we could find that the project meets the reconstruction

standards and therefore would not have a significant impact on the resource. that would in turn not trigger an e.i.r. so an e.i.r. would not be required at that time. that ultimately is the review officer's decision at the department. he would refer to our staff for that determination. >> whatever the final details of that, i'm wondering if allowing them a little bit of time for one more shot at it. is a fairway to go. >> we heard there is a hard line. mr. zellman was -- to that particular design. i don't know if that is still the case. >> we don't always listen to -- -- i think if we said this is the last opportunity. they see how the votes are going. that perhaps whether it works out or not, i don't know.

i just wanted to give it one more shot. >> i'm open to that. i mean to hearing -- to seeing whether or not that could be productive. >> let me make a motion. >> ok. we'll see where the votes go. >> so i guess the question is whether or not what he is suggesting would be a waste of time because -- -- you know, after 10 years, there is --

investment, a coum weeks is nothing. it is like a grain of sand in the beach and i think that it is worth the discussion and as i understand it, it would be a discussion about whether less demolition could be done so it no longer creeps over into defacto demolition and stays within a rehabilitation. therefore, e.i.r. is not -- an amendment, a new one is not triggered and we could go forward as if one is not required. on that basis, mr. zellman and his consultants can look into the possibility of creating a version of what they want while still doing a retab tation that doesn't -- rehabilitation that

doesn't pass that fine line into a defacto demolition and if that is what is being discussed, i think it is worth a continueance to do that. i particularly am disappointed but it is natural that we lose a commissioner from time. there isn't a fourth commissioner and i hope we can agree that it is traditional for this board, not always but to keep in mind that the absence of one commissioner, while it doesn't necessarily mean a vote would have changed, does mean that someone, that the discussion wasn't complete and all commissioners can lead to -- can express conditions that can change all other commissioners and we don't have one commissioner to express their sentiment and have an opportunity. >> it goes way beyond the issue. >> thank you. >> the other option is whose

building, whose design is acceptable to the planning department. >> that's true. >> it is a sea of -- similar to other issues that have been overturned where by if we were to overturn they would have to wait a year and sometime before they could apply for another c of a. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. his business and tax code, section 131. there is the one year bar but if they -- that's for a project but if they come back with something that is not a like project, a different new construction, then i believe that we would review it and there is a possibility that they would not be subject to the one-year bar. >> no one is -- if we continue it and that gives them time to follow what options might be available. so -- personally no harm

whatsoever. >> i'll make a motion. i'm going to move that we continue this to may 11. >> commissioners? any further comment? >> no. >> call the role on that motion, please? and i assume there is no additional briefing. an opportunity for the parties to discuss a resolution. >> we have a full board on the 11th. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to continue this matter until may 11, 2011. it is to allow time for the -- and the h.p.c. to discuss alternative options. >> the planning department.

>> excuse me. >> planning department staff to discuss alternative options. on that motion, president goh? >> aye. >> vice president garcia? >> aye. >> commissioner wong? >> ay pefrpblt the vote is 4-0. this matter is continued until 4-11. >> thank you. excuse me? >> 25 years of my life, this is the -- >> this city should be ashamed of itself. >> this meeting should be adjourned. >> we're adjourned.