they're. at that time there was an orchestra pit because movies -- they were not talkies yet so all movie theaters built at that time had an orchestra pit. we don't know when the stage and the fly loft were built because there are no permits for it and my only assumption was that samuel levin who was the movie -- i mean, the building owner, probably thought that he might need it for vaudville shows because that was typical of the movie theaters at the time. they built it right at the time the building was built, 1926. [speaker not understood] vaudville died 1930, all over america. when the churches were there from 1970 to 2004, they actually had covered up the opening with the stage curtain and used the stage area for storage. they actually built over the orchestra pit and used that as

their altar, as their pulpit area. so, in the course of the history of this building, which is now, you know, closing in on 90 years, the stage was probably only used for three or four years of the, of the life of that theater. so, based on that, i didn't think that that rose to being what's considered a character defining feature of the building. and that for this developer who, trust me, we dragged screaming and kicking to the -- from where he wanted to tear down the building to coming about 90% of the way to agreeing to restore the marquee, put the blade sign back, put some of the ornaments on the building. and basically meeting the secretary of interior standards for the rehabilitation of the building. he came 90% of the way there. but to make it worth doing financially, he needed for that portion of the building to not

be there so he could build the housing that opened to hayes street. so, you know, in my judgment, while he was, you know, sort of challenging to the community and as his representative, i got kind of tarred with that same brush. from an historical point of view i think what he was doing was pretty responsive and i mean, i think you have a good opportunity to build a forum that perhaps we can get the community and the people to the table so that we could, you know, maybe move that project ahead. >> thank you. i had just a few more questions. do you think that there is ever a time when a historic designation should ever be reversed? that's a good question. i think that there was one that was. i think it was the jewish museum building that was the old power station that was there. and so much of the historic fabric was -- and i'm not sure about this, but -- or someone

tried to delist it. if the building is damaged or destroyed, not through the austria cpitions of the owner or planning -- if it burns down. >> if it is a source of blight or there is no potential development opportunities based on the limitation of the use of the space, do you consider those things that would potentially be cause for concern and should be considered to reverse -- well, i think there is a distinction. i think of a building as a landmark different from a historic resource. the harding building is a resource and, you know, it's a difficult question. i think if, you know, if the building literally is causing, you know, property damage, then there is -- that discussion height and bulk had whether that building should be removed or not.

~ should be had it's under duress you would actually consider that. >> okay, let's see. i wanted to ask you if you could expand just a little bit on -- you talked about historic preservation should not necessarily be an obstacle to livability. you brought up a few examples of that. just your approach to dealing with issues of historic preservation as a commissioner seemed to be more of a practical sense, but also a reasonable sense. so, can you give me just really cases where there may be? ~ some level of extreme situations where there's no compromise when we talk about historic preservation situations? the harding theater -- it's an awfully big handful because

even today the community is unwilling to compromise with the building owner. i really think that in that case , you know, millions of dollars could be spent and the owner is willing to do it, but preservation, you know, the preservation community or the community there that demands that it has to be a theater in some incarnation is being -- you know, is obstructing the progress of get geting that building to be a contributing building ~ and retain its historic character. i think there's -- you know, i mentioned in my statement about working with the planning department. there are -- the application of the secretary of interior guidelines creates a lot of circumstances where they are blatantly -- they are rigidly applied. for instance, i was working on a house, an 1880s house in pacific heights. it was certainly an historic

resource. it was in extremely bad condition. most of the house was. it had a fire, but the facade and street presence was still there. the major structural line in that house was 14 feet back from the facade. one of the secretary of interior standards talks about the differentiation of new contraction from old construction so that you don't have a confusion -- the public doesn't have a confusion oh, that old house was built in 1880. no, this house was built in 1880s that portion of the house was built in the current day. ~ so, i asked the head of historic planning at that time -- it was a long time ago -- if i could setback 14 feet instead of the 15 feet that's prescribed by the department, which is based on the word differentiation. so, there's nothing in the standards that say it has to be setback 15 feet. and when i asked about 14 feet, because that would make it a lot less expensive from a structural standpoint, the answer was no, blatantly no, it has to be 15 feet. and to me, that makes zero

sense relative to the context, the actual structure because in a sense it wasn't respecting the structure that was there. and, so, you know, there have been many times when those kind of rigid interpretations -- and that was the case, you know, with the report that i did on the small building in west soma because it was so small and all the zoning requirements plus the 15-foot setback from his facade, it made it virtually, you know, infeasible to actually build there. so, you know, i think that there need to be ways and i think the hpc can be a leader in helping work with the planning department and the historic planners to come up with, you know, much finer look at building by building because, you know, we don't always look at every building in the city every time you build a building. we should be looking at the existing, you know, the specific building and its context. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair.

>> i received a round of communications with individuals who have a history of advocating for historical preservation who are unfamiliar with you. and if appointed to the hpc, will you be willing to meet with these advocates and work with differences, work with different perspectives -- that is historic perspectives? of course. we're all in this together as san franciscans. you know, i come to this place from a different perspective. it doesn't mean it's not, you know, very much celebrating and caring about historic buildings and san francisco. i've been here for 24 years and expect to be here for the rest of my days. and, you know, i think that we have some -- we have a great built environment. so, obviously.

just coincidentally, yesterday i was asked about being on the board of an organization called delcomomo which is the documentation of conservation and buildings of the modern movement for the northern california chapter because of the work that i have been doing on this noitra project. these are things that i want to do and want to be involved in. and, so, yes, of course. i hope it's not adversarial. i would like it to be very collegial in that. >> thank you. is there any public comment for this item? speakers will have two minutes. please indicate if you support this appointment or not. good afternoon, supervisors. henry ka mill owe with [speaker not understood] san francisco council business merchants associations. i've known jonathan quite a while. [speaker not understood] is a real difficult issue that comes up all the time with planning with buildings that are 50

years or more. sometimes we get situations of buildings that are less than 50 years old and [speaker not understood] the whole hpre evaluation before they'll approve it. and i found jonathan to be someone who is really knowledgeable in preservation. he's really an advocate for preserving buildings. i'd urge you to approve his nomination to this seat. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. [speaker not understood] structural engineer. i worked with jonathan pearlman for the last 15 years. he's an extremely competent architect. i was delighted to hear from supervisor breed that -- there's two words that apply to a good commissioner. that's practical and responsive commissioner. that's what jonathan pearlman would be. he's [speaker not understood]

architectural private sector. he has worked with planning in the department of building inspection for over 15 years. he has experience and the knowledge. he recognizes the challenges that families have when they have to remodel their buildings. he knows that pain from the inside. he has to present the client's perspective to plan [speaker

not understood]. >> technical difficulty; please stand by ♪ most of all let there be ron pearlman on this seat. >> are there any more -- go ahead. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm alan orrick. i have been asked to read a letter in support of mr. pearlman by richard noitra's son. i am writing in support of jonathan pearlman's candidacy as san francisco historian for the perez r vation commission. although as a physician and epidemiologist, my own career was environmental health, teaching at harvard, ucla, uc berkeley, and then for 27 years heading up environmental health research at the california department of public health. ~ i grew up with a family of architects.

after my retirement, i have been helping cal poly pomona restore the historic 1932 studio residences designed by my father, richard noytra, one of the founders of california modern. i have been visiting with other historic modernist house museums around the world to learn about their restoration and programming. i was invited to serve on the program committee of the noytra house in los altos. it was originally a small residence of poet jacqueline johnson, designed by my father in the late 1930s. it has been restored and adaptively reused as an intimate conference venue. i have had the pleasure of working with mr. pearlman on his program committee. what i have noticed about mr. pearlman is this. he understands not only the importance of sensitive restoration and adaptive reuse, but also the intellectual historical context of original buildings. he is widely read in the

history of architecture, although we are volunteers on that committee, he always follows through on what he volunteers to do. he is skilled not only as an architect, but also as a graphic designer and has been responsible for designing all the graphics related to the noytra house and its website. he has initiated a yearly house tour in the los all toes area whose income pay [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. thank you. >> okay. seeing no more people, public comment is now still open. [laughter] thank you. >> are there any more speakers? please come up, because otherwise i can't tell if there are. good afternoon, chair yee, supervisor breed, supervisor cohen. congratulations to the new supervisors. it's not an easy job to attain. my name is joe butler, i'm an architect, i've been in san francisco since 193 and a licensed architect in california since 1984.

i, too, like mr. pearlman, come at preservation from a slightly different place. i spent almost 20 years as the founding member of [speaker not understood] house committee fighting the demolition of historic buildings that were owned by members of the residential builders whom i understand have put forward his nomination to you today. i could give you three quick addresses, 900 innes, which i believe is in cohen's district, supervisor cohen, 1269 lombard, mark farrell's district, and [speaker not understood] which is in noe valley. the fact that that is where this nomination comes from troubles me. but the fact of his 2009 resume troubles me even more. i oppose that in 2009 and at great concern for my political and professional life came to you as a board to oppose that nomination. architects are a fraternity and

a sorority, but we respect each other in our [speaker not understood] styles differ in our opinions. but mr. pearlman's listing architectural history as his av degree, i find out from tufts university this morning is not correct. so, i tried the word history, a major in history is not correct. was it a major in architectural history, no? was it a major in art and architectural history? no. ~ so, i'm troubled by that as well as by the fact that when one looks at his website, he refers to the buildings that he renovates which are historic as rabbit war of brooms in a tired old house, as a ram shackle house, as a dilapidated house, falling down 1880s victorian with only the facade salvageable. that's not what the city family needs in its commissioners. thank you. >> i have a question for you, sir. >> sir. >> you tell me, you called tufts university to verify whether -- what his degree is

in? yes, ma'am. >> and what did you find out? i spoke with shad nell keith women yams at 617-6 27-2000. she's in the registrar's office. she can't give me because i'm not mr. pearlman, what his degree was in, but she can say that for the record, in response to my question, that yes, he does have an ab degree and it was in 19l 0, but she can't tell me what the major was. so, i tried all of those different options and she said none of those are what are posted to his transcript. ~ 1980 1980 >> mr. pearlman, there will be an opportunity. that's it. thanks. >> thank you. i will -- go ahead. good afternoon, members of the committee. mike bueler with san francisco architectural heritage. as you know, heritage is seeking a continuance of

today's item to allow time for concerned organizations, including heritage and san francisco beautiful the opportunity to meet with mr. pearlman and further discuss his qualifications for this position and his aspirations for the commission. i did have the opportunity to speak with mr. pearlman yesterday afternoon. as you have just heard, he's very forthright and well spoken. however, there are significant concerns that we still have that would benefit from further dialogue. first of all, heritage learned of the nomination just late last week and, of of course, the agenda for today's item was just posted early this week despite our efforts to regularly check in with the mayor's office. secondly, we understand that the nomination was put forward by the residential builders association, an organization that has been openly and publicly hostile to historic preservation protections in san francisco in the past. we would certainly like to know

more about mr. pearlman's association with rba and under if his views are reflective of their past positions on articles 10 and 11 and historic preservations in the city. lastly, what we heard about most or qualifications, mr. pearlman is being nominated [speaker not understood] the architectural historian seat, has a specially rigorous requirement set forth by the secretary of the interior that typically require a graduate degree in architectural history. although mr. pearlman does have an undergraduate degree, it would require a demonstration of two years of teaching or writing or research experience, or having made a substantial contribution to scholarly knowledge in the field of american architectural history. at this point we're not reassured that he has that. thank you very much. >> at this moment i'd like to bring up -- ask a question of

the city attorney. andrea [speaker not understood]. there's been a question about mr. pearlman's qualification for this seat. can you respond to that? >> good afternoon, rules committee. deputy city attorney andrew chen. mr. bueler i think correctly enunciated the standard for seat 3 on the historic preservation commission. the architectural historian seat. i don't have much more to add to the legal standards, although i'm happy to restate it for the committee if that would be helpful at all. but it is the charge of the committee obviously to determine whether mr. pearlman does meet those qualifications set forth in the charter. >> go ahead. >> can you explain to me what the role is in terms of

verifying certain qualifications for this particular position prior to them coming before the rules committee? >> through the chair to supervisor breed, i can't speak to every aspect of what additional screening mr. pearlman may have received before being forwarded to the committee. perhaps someone from the mayor's office can speak in more detail to that. i'm sure the mayor's office did review the qualifications and applicable standards with mr. pearlman. and obviously part of the process, in term of determining who should be appointed to this seat on the historic preservation commission, obviously this hearing is a very important part of that. mr. pearlman obviously had an opportunity to explain his background and the committee members obviously had the opportunity to explore that further with him here. >> thank you. >> mr. pearlman, would you like to come up and respond to the qualification piece? sure. >> maybe, maybe just in the

interest of moving the agenda, we can ask specific questions to mr. pearlman such as can you tell us what your degree is? yes. so, my degree is an ab in fine arts with a major in american architectural history. >> okay, thank you very much. mr. butler i don't think asked about fine arts. >> thank you. come on up. supervisors, my name is stuart morton. i served under three mayors, moscone, feinstein and jordan on the landmarks board. i am also right now the chair of the preservation consortium which is a city-wide group of preservations and neighborhoods and professionals. we interviewed mr. pearlman in 2009 prior to the hpc's commissioners being appointed. we did not recommend mr. pearlman at that time, feeling

he was inappropriate for the seat which he was being proposed. again, we have the same problem. we haven't had a chance, however, to interview him once more, but the consortium is against his nomination. thank you. >> which seat did you interview him for in 2009? i was trying to think just a moment ago. i don't remember. >> all right, thank you very much. >> thank you. seeing no other public comment, public comment is now closed. because of the way this was stated on the agenda, we have to make an amendment. colleagues, can we have a motion to amend the motion to confirm the appointment of jonathan pearlman to the historical preservation commission? >> i'm sorry, just as a point of clarification. can you read into the record

what exactly the error is on the agenda? >> when madam clerk announced it, i mean read out what this is on the agenda -- >> um-hm. >> -- on the agenda itself, it says motion approving/rejecting the mayor's nomination for appointment of jonathan pearlman to the historical preservation commission for seat number 3 for a term ending december 31st, 2016, and which madam clerk had read out. and what we need is to make an amendment to approve because right now there is either/or and you cannot vote on either/or. under? >> yes. >> okay.

so, i need a motion. >> second. >> okay, roll call, please, for this, the amendment. >> on the amendment to strike through the words rejecting, supervisor breed? >> aye. >> breed aye. supervisor cohen? >> excuse me. rejecting? >> strike through the word rejecting. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen? >> aye. >> cohen aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. >> thank you. now, colleagues, is there a motion to move forward this appointment with recommendation to the full board? >> i'd like to make a comment. >> please do. >> thank you. when evaluating a nominee, the first question i ask, is the person qualified. after reviewing mr. pearlman's qualifications, reviewing materials and the work that he's done in the past based on historic preservation assessment, i truly believe that he is.

i also ask, has he made himself available to me and my staff? and he has, and has been open about answering questions, and is available, i'm sure, to anyone else who is interested in meeting with him as well to discuss his seat on the historic preservation -- his potential seat on the historic preservation commission. lastly, i ask, is there something in the nominee's body of work or his philosophy that renders him unacceptable for the position? and based on my review, the answer is no. mr. pearlman is a practical preservationist. i may not always agree with his specific assessments, but i trust that he shares the right values. he understands that our historic resources shouldn't be mosoleums. they shouldn't stay boarded up for years at a time for fear that refurbishing will alter the slightest detail. historic resources should be preserved and reinvigorated to

contribute to our communities. i am confident that mr. pearlman will advance the cause -- this cause as a member of the historic preservation commission and with that i'd like to move this nomination to the full board for consideration. >> supervisor cohen? >> thank you. before we make that motion, i just want to say a couple words also about mr. pearlman would i actually have come to know through this process. ~ who i have no bias coming into this process. as you know, i'm one of the newer members on the rules committee and our duty is charged with evaluating whether or not a person is going to be capable of handling the duties and functions of the commission or board or cac or whatever the body is that they're looking to be appointed to. and i have not heard compelling reason why i should not support him. i'm concerned that, that heritage and the consortium have kind of trumped up some --

i can't really call them charges because you don't really charge on anything. but are looking for a reason to not support this, not support mr. pearlman. and i found very little relevance to whether or not there is any significance if mr. pearlman was or was not nominated by the rba or put forward. i also found that -- it hard to believe heritage doesn't know or is unfamiliar with mr. pearlman considering that he's been living in san francisco for 24 years and has had many numerous years of working on various projects in san francisco. and, and so, i also would like to associate myself with some of the comments supervisor breed made on the criteria and the tools that we use to evaluate whether a candidate is strong and worthy. and, you know, in my conversations with mr. pearlman one on one, he seems to have

met that bar and, quite frankly, i think we're pretty lucky to have him. i think he exceeds the bar and that standard that we're looking to -- that we're looking to have in the historic preservation commission. so, i, too, would like to make a motion to move this appointment forward with a positive recommendation from this body to the full board. >> my comment is that mr. pearlman will bring in a slightly different perspective from maybe some of the other members on the commission. but in regards to his values of historical preservation, i feel very comfortable that he's move in the relevant being of understanding and seeing that perspective. without objection, we'll move this to the full board. >> second. >> excuse me, mr. chair.