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.

>> the public wants to access particular information about your house or neighborhood we point them to gis. gis is a combination of maps and data. not a graphic you see on a

screen. you get the traffic for the streets the number of crimes for a police district in a period of time. if the idea of combining the different layerce of information and stacking them on top of each other to present to the public. >> other types of gis are web based mapping systems. like google earth, yahoo maps. microsoft. those are examples of on line mapping systems that can be used to find businesses or get driving directions or check on traffic conditions. all digital maps. >> gis is used in the city of san francisco to better support what departments do. >> you imagine all the various elements of a city including parcels and the critical

infrastructure where the storm drains are. the city access like the traffic lights and fire hydrants. anything you is represent in a geo graphic space with be stored for retrieval and analysis. >> the department of public works they maintain what goes on in the right-of-way, looking to dig up the streets to put in a pipe. with the permit. with mapping you click on the map, click on the street and up will come up the nchgz that will help them make a decision. currently available is sf parcel the assessor's application. you can go to the assessor's website and bring up a map of