the recommendation on the narrowest margin from the historic preservation commission to deal landmarks -- do landmarks? some might not have been happy with a landmark that might have interfered with the demolition of the existing building. the questions raised include, and do you want to get people that are more likely to get along as opposed to folks who are independent? the want to give people the best benefit of an excellent background and independence to serve the public with respect to landmarks? while you don't have buckley's nomination before you, the

current nominee is someone who should not be supported. thank you. >> i am a architectural historian and was most recently the research assistant for professor emeritus -- meredith of princeton that passed away a couple weeks ago. we have a superlative city commissioner in seat number four . i dare say the san francisco museum and historical society should retain his full energies. that given, you are being asked

to substitute someone of local enthusiasm for a nationally recognized historian who is teaching at a preeminent national college of the united states. what does this say? it must be explained. if james buckley is not going to be replaced, what about robert churney? he did a superlative excellent job. i would urge you to consider that the atmosphere in the city on planning issues is heavily influenced by planning, development, money. we saw today in the chronicle, a

complete opposite statement of the central park has no preservation control. there could be nothing further from the truth. it is a landmark. these other kinds of things that are happening in the city. the chronicle really needs a historian on board. the historic preservation commission needs an academic historian or a full-time historian. someone who has dedicated their professional career to that. that is a requirement. i urge you that in this

nomination, you're rejecting someone who continues to serve our interested in the city. our tourist industry is very much a blank. -- linked. [chime] >> good afternoon, supervisors. in the city of san francisco, we have so many boards and commissions. there are no qualifications required to give back to the city.

the historic preservation commission is very different. there are explicit qualifications except for the seat that is the general seat. this seat number four has some very specific qualifications. when i looked at the citadel, there was not one word -- at the resume of mr. johns, there was not one word of his dedication outside his law practice. that is not requested. i hope you will not appoint him. thank you.

>> welcome to you. i'm a member of the san francisco preservation consortium. i am speaking for myself. you have just heard testimony about how very well qualified he is to be on the historic preservation commission certainly, he could be a great addition to the commission. seat 7 is open, and seat 5 he might be qualified. a professional such as law, land

use, professional desgin. -- design. it sounds like a really good description of mr. johns' qualifications. it is a stretch to see him as qualified for seat number 4. it states a very specific requirement of a professional historian. he has a great interest. he has experience. but he is not a professional historian. i think you have heard a description of what a professional historian would be.

a historian is defined not by definitions but of the secretary of interior's qualification statements. i don't know if you have in front of you, but the minimum professional qualification is a graduate degree in history are closely related field. or a bachelor's degree in history with one of the following. two years in writing, teaching, interpretation or demonstrable activity. with a bachelor's degree in history. think about what the related

field could be. it would have to be closely related. [chime] thank you. >> good afternoon, members of the committee. i would like to know if there is no question about his passion and dedication to historic preservation. a central issue for our organization is with this particular seat and whether the nominee meets the standards as set forth by the city charter. in this respect, it seems all speakers would agree that he

does not meet the academic qualifications to qualify as a historian. he would certainly be qualified for other seats on the commission but did not require credentials in a particular discipline. our concern is not for the seat, it is the integrity of proposition j and the city charter. it requires minimum qualifications and standards for particular disciplines relating to historic preservation. opening the door to one seat will certainly opened the door to all of the others. we do not believe it is consistent with proposition j. we urge you to not recommend this qualification.

>> my name is vincent marsh, and i served in the landmarks part of the city. it is essential to have qualified people serve on the board. in my present capacity, i serve as the co-share of the presentation consortium. we believe that the candidate does not meet the qualifications of the historian pursuant to the secretary of interior's standards for qualifications. because in san francisco is a certified government, it is important that members of the board meet the specific criteria for the individual positions. we would recommend that you continue your search.

there are many good candidates out there. thank you for your time. >> i am here to oppose the nomination. i served on the landmarks board. we were all political appointees. one reason prop j was passed was to give professionalism. we don't believe he has -- he would be a good at-large member. to be on the professional

commission, we need to reconsider it. thank you. >> howard wong, i'm an architect and have worked on historic structures. also, with many of my fellow architects and preservation architects who are a specialized field, architects do not claim to be historic preservation architect. it often requires degrees and a graduate degrees. they also rely on professional historians. we believe by the very nature of rfp's, historians and

preservation architects often have established credentials, academic requirements, just as a doctor, lawyer, engineer. all of these fields jhave logical credentials. a historian works on many issues. continuation reports. preservation criteria. historic district criteria. the academically inclined work that takes years of actual practice. perhaps internships as an architect or a lawyer might achieve them. the charter amendment is legal language. it is the city charter now.

it is something that the residents are expected to abide by. looking at the text of prop j that created the positions for the historic preservation. professional qualifications, federal guidelines. just as you and your respective professions. we did not study engineering to become an architect.

these are aspects of the charter that have to be upheld. i think the rules committee would be looked at as a somewhat -- i won't say the word. thank you. >> i am speaking in opposition to mr. johns. i was appointed to the original landmarks board. i served on the board for 13 years under four mayors. after leading the board in 1980, i started my own preservation business during

which i served over 200 clients. perhaps more important, i was on the steering committee for the development of prop j. we specifically did the qualifications for each of the seats except seat 7 so we would have a qualified, professional group of people doing this work. if you look at the language, you will see that the clear intent was a professional historian. i don't think he has any of those qualifications. i have to ask you to find someone else or ask the mayor to

find someone else. there some historic preservation officials on staff. most young people don't even know how to do research. they don't know how to thoroughly evaluate other historians' intent with architectural surveys. we have to send word to the mayor that he needs to live up to the charter. and this appointment and others did not go through because there were nominations of people that were not qualified. we were able to have those go way.

thank you. supervisor kim: if there is no further public comment, public comment is now closed. motion? any comments? >> i watched the hearing and i tend to agree with supervisors campos and mar. knowing him as well as i do, i have everything with confidence that he will be a fantastic public servant and will service commission well. -- serve this commission well.

i am happy to move forward the confirmation of his appointment. that would be moving forward item number 3. supervisor farrell: from my point of view as well, i would agree with supervisor elsbernd. also, comment that having gotten to know him over the last year, i can't think of a person who is not only a great citizen but would also served us very well. supervisor kim: there is a motion to move forward item 3 and table number 4. just my comments. i appreciate the public coming to speak on this item and i and appreciate centering the discussion strictly on qualifications and not on the person.

i do not know him as well, but i appreciate his enthusiasm and his work here. i see no reason not to support his nomination. my one concern is that i would like to see more diversity on the committee, women and people of color. i appreciate the consortium 14 recommendations -- forwarding recommendations and the verse candidates. if there is no objection. thank you. madame clerk, items 5 and 6? >> motion approving the mayor's nomination to the historic preservation commission.

motion rejecting the mayor's nomination to the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for my consideration of reappointment. i have served as seat 6. i have served 4 years as preservation advisory board. i believe my specialty with my extensive history is actually in the repurchasing of buildings and helping the city move forward. i believe architectural history gives diversity in the look and feel of the city. our greatest asset is our buildings.

we are moving forward as a delicate balance. i take extreme care in our decisions and i look forward to moving forward with another four years. supervisor kim: any questions? we will open up to public comment. thank you so much for being here. >> i want to talk about his work and said that in my experience, having to comply with guidelines and experience. use of people with all corners of the room testified in

support. if -- testify ain support. >> i would like to speak in favor of his reappointment to the commission over the last six months. i have been impressed by his dedication, level of thoughtfulness on the commission. i would also like to add that he has reached an independently to me -- reached out independently to me for historic preservation. and to enhance their understanding. >> thank you. >> howard wong, speaking for the

preservation consortium. with support his appointment. and his great knowledge of the building process, the constraints that it might have for a variety of issues, he leads a very interesting course. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. seein gng no further -- i believe we have one more speaker. >> i want to support the nomination as i did on january 3. supervisor kim: supervisors, and comments? -- any comments?

without objections, i would like to move forward item 5 and table no. 6. madam court, may we hear items 7? >> resolution concerning the appointment of harry kim and herb cohn to the san francisco relocation appeals board, terms ending january 2, 2012. chairperson kim: i want to thank everyone who came to the discussion with the supervisors. nearly half the applicants come forward? -- may we have of the applicants come forward? -- may we have the applicants come forward? separately, please. mr. kim, good afternoon.

>> good afternoon and happy new year. congratulations, new supervisors jane kim and mr. farrell. sean elsbernd is district 7, where i lived a long time. i was here many times. the relocation appeals board -- i was appointed in 1993. i was a director from 1998 -- from 1992. i assisted dianne feinstein when she was mayor. the appoint me with some many civic duties. -- they have appointed me with so many civic duties. it is good to see some dear good friends back there.

i see that we have eugene flannery, the secretary of the recreation appeals board commission. they are asking me to come today, so i am here. anyway, have the new year. -- happy new year. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. first of all, mr. kim, you are a hard act to follow. the first thing i wanted to say is that it is very unusual for me to be appear advocated for myself. i am usually advocating for the needs of small business, a parking restrictions. it is a twist to be up here to talk about myself. i want to talk to you a little bit about the relocation appeals board and why i feel i am a good

fit for the board. i started out as a neighborhood person. i got very active in neighborhood issues in the castro, where i live. i understand neighborhood needs. from there, and moved on to citywide small-business groups and have worked with a variety of small business groups citywide. by profession, i am a cpa. i have an accounting background. finally, i am a commercial real estate owner, so i understand the needs of property owners. all of those things meld together to make me a pretty good fit for this board, i think. i don't want to talk too much about myself, but thank you. about myself, but thank you. chairperson kim: