recommend the general plan amendments and the zoning amendments as they are before you to the board of supervisors for approval and to tell the board you would like them to consider whether we can move the tower to the east, and we will support that, provided the environmental analysis confirms we can go forward on the basis of an addendum and no more for their environmental review would be required, and a lot -- no more further environmental review would be required. we need to go through the steps. that is our understanding. we would ask that you take that action. thank you very much. >> would you finish your comment?

>> i would agree that this includes a recommendation as presented tonight. that would be my understanding and thinking about other places where some businesses have been abandoned. >> i am trained to -- trying to tweak that.

we are recognizing you as the owner. >> there is a on a motion -- a motion to recommend to the supervisors. >> i think it would be worthwhile to have a motion summarizing the discussion we just have a curator -- we just have. the commission would consider a proposal to move one parcel to the east.

the commission urges the board to study such a proposal and to consider such an amendment at the board. the commission has considered this as a referral section of the planning code, which means if the board makes the change, it would not have to come back to the commission. >> in part, what it fails to represent isla the commission recommends approval of the project has presented, that the commission requests the board of

supervisors to consider moving the yerby tower and one block to the east, provided that doing so can comply with ceqa and through the use of an addendum. this would suggest the board can move in that direction with the recommendation of the planning commission, even if it would require further environmental review. we do not want further environmental review. i believe making the point is very thoughtful, but i think we want to make short is limited. thank you.

comissioner antonini: i would agree with what mr. burke said. if this move who were large enough a change that it would trigger further major action, other than an addendum, that is not in the motion. if that language can be included in there. >> to the point that the commission is recommending the particular projects in the motion, i think that is clear. the second point i will add the addendum to the language and provide an additional review over and above the addendum, it

does not apply to your your -- it does not apply. >> i believe the language is a positive suggestion. we all acknowledge limitations and environmental work but must be done, but we are not making any apologies. we are not saying it should involve any further action, and we are recommending to the board to consider this, because it is a rather important issue. >> on the motion and the second as rendered by the city attorney to adopt ceqa findings and approve -- [calling folvotes]

>> the motion passes unanimously. you are now on public comment your your -- public comments. >> thank you. is there any additional public comments on items that were not on the agenda. simenon, the meeting is adjourned. -- seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.

>> welcome to culture wire. we will look at the latest and greatest public art project. recently, the airport unveiled the new state of the art terminal. let's take a look.

the new terminal service and american airlines and virgin america was designed by a world- renowned architecture's firm. originally built in 1954, the building underwent massive renovation to become the first registered terminal and one of the must modern and sustainable terminals and the united states. the public art program continues its 30-year legacy of integrating art into the airport environment with the addition of five new commissions that are as bold and dynamic as the new building. >> this project was completed in record time, and we were able to integrate the artist's early enough in the process that they could work with the architect said that the work that is completed is the work that really helps complement and

instill the space as opposed to being tucked away in a corner. >> be experience begins with the glass facades that was designed with over 120 laminated glass panels. it captures the experience of being under or over clouds when flying in a plane. depending on the distance or point of view, it can appear clear for more abstract and atmospheric. the subtle colors change gradually depending on the light and the time of day. >> i wanted to create an art work that looks over time as well as working on in the first glance. the first time you come here, you may not see a. but you may be able to see one side over the other. it features a couple of

suspended sculptures. each was created out of a series of flat plains run parallel to each other and constructed of steel tubing. >> it is made up of these strata. as the light starts to shift, there is a real sense that there is a dynamism. >> it gives the illusion that this cultures might be fragments of a larger, mysterious mass. >> the environmental artwork livens it with color, light, and the movement. three large woven soldiers are suspended. these are activated by custom air flow program. >> i channeled air flow into each of these forms that makes

it move ever so slightly. and it is beating like a heart. if-0 when as of the forces of nature moving around us every second. >> shadow patterns reflect the shapes of the hanging sculptures. the new terminal also features a children's play areas. both of the market the exploratory n.y. -- exploratorium. the offer travelers of all ages a playful oasis. using high quality plywood, they created henches shaped like a bird wings that double as musical instruments. serving as a backdrop is a mural featuring images of local birds

and san francisco's famous skyline. >> in the line between that is so natural, you can see birds and be in complete wilderness. i really like that about this. you could maybe get a little snapshot of what they are expecting. >> it is an interactive, keck sculpture that is interacted with by the visitor. >> they are a lot about and they fall down the belt. it moves the belt up, and if you turn that faster, the butterflies fall in the move of words. >> the art reflect the commission's commitment to acquiring the best work from the bay area and beyond.

in addition to the five new commissions, 20 artworks that were already in the airport collection were reinstalled. some of which were historically cited in the terminal. it includes major sculptures by the international artists. as a collection, these art works tell the story of the vibrant arts scene in the early 1960's through the mid-1980s's. the illustrate san francisco's cultural center and a place of innovation that is recognized and the love throughout the world. one of the highlights is a series of three left tapestries. they are on view after being in storage for 20 years. these tapestries representing various gardens. from his years of living in san francisco. hydrangeas, chrysanthemums, and

whilst dahlias in rich, deep shades as they make their way to the baggage area. they can access behind-the- scenes information and interviews with the artist through an audio to work. it features archival audio as well as interviews with living artists. he can be accessed on site by dialing the telephone numbers located near the artwork or by visiting the commission's web site. the public art speaks volumes of san francisco as a world-class city with world-class art and culture. for more information, visit

chairperson mar: good afternoon. welcome to the monday, may 2 meeting of the 90's and economic development committee of the san francisco -- of the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. our clerk is alisa somera. >> please make sure to turn off all cellular phones and pagers. any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items will be on the may 10 supervisors' agenda unless otherwise stated. chairperson mar: we have 12 items on the agenda today. as the chair of the committee, i am going to do my best to keep

it moving so we can get to all the items. the first item on the agenda. >> hearing on the impact of historic preservation policies on other major public policy goals, and the need to adopt legislation to ensure the policies are achieved. supervisor weiner: thank you, chairman mar. i am really impressed. this is one of the reasons that i love san francisco so much. you bring up an important issue and people come out and care enough and are willing to take the time to talk about what everyone's position is. i want to thank everyone for taking the time to be here today to talk about this important issue. that issue is how we should balance historic preservation with the various other key policy goals in a forward-

looking city. it would be hard to find someone who is not a historic preservation supporter, whether we are talking about our beautiful victorian or art deco building stock, magnificent landmarks like the fairy building, the castro theater, or city hall, or gems like golden gate park and dolores park, we all cherish the greatness of our city passed. this is not to question the importance of historic preservation. there is near universal support for historic preservation. i enthusiastically joined that support, as i did when i supported the creation of the historic preservation commission. the purpose of today's commission is to discuss how historic preservation sits into the complex and ever-changing ecosystem called san francisco,

how this policy goal fits in with numerous policy goals we embrace, goals like creating sufficient housing, particularly affordable and transit-oriented -- transit- oriented housing. and we have a goal of usable parks and libraries that reflect our past, but also reflect that recreation and library use has changed dramatically over time. goals like making necessary changes to roads and public rights of way to enhance pedestrian safety and make our transit system modern. historic preservation is important, but it is not our cities only policy goal, or even its dominant policy goal, nor should it prevent needed change in the city, with the creating a usable public library in north beach, changing our parks to meet recreational needs, or allowing and used where houses and automobiles garages to be

transformed for new uses. historic preservation is one important policy goal among various important goals. preservation should not be dismissed in the name of progress, growth, and forward momentum, given that we need to cherish and learn from our past. by the same token, other policy goals should not be dismissed or undermined in the name of preservation. while we have much to love about our past, our city has changed, and continues to change. in other words, all public policies, no matter how meritorious, have limits. no policy, whether economic growth or historic preservation, should trump all else -- all else. our goal is to talk about what that policy balance is, and what it should be. how do we acknowledge that a living are been, world-class city needs to serve its past

while also moving forward and changing? we will be hearing a number of different perspectives today. i look forward to that. first i am going to ask if either of my colleagues have opening comments. we are going to proceed. the way we are going to do this is we are going to hear from several city departments we have asked to come and talk about the issue. i thank them for being here. we are then going to hear from the executive director of san francisco architectural heritage. then we'll enter into public comment. i think people have already given their cards in for public comment. if you have not, there will be yellow cards on the banister. we have a lot of public comment. that is great. the time limit is 2 the laminates. that does not apply to the

departments. but we would encourage you, if you are able, to make your comment in less than two minutes. you should feel free to do so. you do not have to, but if someone else has said what you want to say, feel free to summarize that. everyone will have up to two minutes. chairperson mar: i urge people very strongly to keep it within two minutes. we have tall items before us, and treasure island is coming afterwards. but i know how important this issue is. supervisor weiner: will start with the planning department. >> thank you. thank you for calling this hearing. i think it is a great opportunity for us to explain our issues and talk about some concerns that have been raised. i am going to cover a couple of introductory issues and then ask the preservation coordinator to

go to a more detailed presentation. there are two things i want to mention. one is that the city has an extraordinary architectural heritage, which you have certainly recognized. it is probably the most significant on the west coast. secondly, as a department, the planning department is charged with starting that heritage, and is also charged with balancing historic preservation issues with the general plan and other policy documents. as you said, there is a balance that we have tried to strike. i fully recognize there are those who believe we have gone too far in one direction, and those who believe we have not gone far enough. i think that is partially what this hearing is about and what we will talk about today. if i could go to a few slides and talk about what we are trying to answer today, i guess

i will use the big screen. there are five key questions that have come up in the context of this hearing in the last couple of years. we will try to answer those questions today. one has to do with the role of the historic preservation commission. one has to do with the landmark commission advisory body. the second has to do with surveys we have been conducting of the last several years. will the result in additional burdens on property owners? the third has to do with time, resources, and the cost and process of getting those approved and working on a building that is not a historic research. the fourth has to do with environmental impact reports. i think there is an important corollary to the questions.

there is a distinction between restoring a historic resource and whether that should be retained. the first is a technical question and the second is a policy question. finally, there is a question of the relative weight of historic preservation compared to other policies, and the balance restrike with those policies. today, we are going to give you an overview of how we conduct our work in the department, the role of the historic preservation commission, and the purpose of the service. the california environmental quality act -- it is important to distinguish between what happens over the secret and what happens in other aspects of our preservation. there are other parts of the city represented by the departments here today.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am tim fry, with planning department staff. what i would like to present to you today is essentially where preservation is legislated at the local level, and where preservation policies come into play in the department process. if you would like detailed information about the subjects, i have left plenty of time for questions. the preservation program began in 1967, with the adoption of article 10 of the planning code. this also created the landmark preservation advisory board. this was to recognize and protect san francisco's historic architectural character. in 1985, article 11 was created.

article 11, when it was adopted, provided additional protection for the significant buildings in our zoning districts, particularly c3 districts. that was incorporated into the city charter. the historic preservation commission folded in under their action duties all of the buildings identified in articles 10 and 11. the hpc act more as a decision making body, and play an advisory role not only to the planning department, but the planning commission and the board of supervisors. they are much like the advisory body the landmarks board. they are not involved in any determination under ceqa.

they are not involved in related approvals. the also not involved in any survey properties. this map illustrates those buildings and districts that are identified within the planning code. there are 11 article 10 districts and six article 11 districts. this comes out to roughly 2000 properties under these sections of the code. the city is designated just over 1% of the overall building stock under articles 10 and 11. these are the only buildings that are under the purview of the hpc. just to briefly focus on survey , our survey