eir regarding preservation alternatives mptd let me walk you through the key point in the resolution and the policy statement. ginerally the policy statement includes point that reflect the seek wurequirements that i have spoken about. in some cases it highlights the procedural rifermt said that we standerly dine san francisco and in some cases there are request for information that the commission asked for from our staff. so, generally the wraez is in the category of explaining the seek ws process and requirements in san francisco. if we get to the numbered items, the first item and second item per tain to the preservation alternatives. this first one reflects that the seek wurequirement that if we have a significant impact of the

project that we have alternatives that would address that significant impact and if one is historic resource impact it is a preservation alternative. there is a difference between a preservation alternative or full or partial preservation alturn trfb. a full preservation alternative would avoid or lessen the impact of the historic resource so that the impact wouldn't occur and may be the golden standard of preservation for a project. the partial preservation alternative recognizes that sometimes there are site consideration or constraint that make it more challenging to come up with a preservation alternative that is as robust as we might otherwise like to see so partial preservation

would be preserving as many of the futures orstructureoffs the buildsing that convey the significance and as possible. taking into account the project objectives. then we get into some of the-number 3, clayifys when you can call something preservation alternative or not. you get into some of the requirements for how we present information eir's and the graphic materials and analysis item number 4 and we heard from the commission that you would like to see preservation alturn trfbs that are flushed out to a degree we can really get a sense of what the material differences are from the proposed project and that would support a full consideration of those alternatives for approval

thmpt eir in number 5 we will include an analysis and description of how we formialilate the alternative and any alternative we rejected. number 6 somewhat relates to a partial preservation alternative. this is reflecting the fact that the commission has spressed in some cases [inaudible] retention may be preferable to [inaudible] demilation when it may improve the overall design of the project. facade retitian isn't appropriate because it wouldn't avoid the-facade retention wouldn't avoid that significant impact, but it may be possible

to incorporate it into a alternative and often that is the case when we have full or partial preservation alternative. there are going be certain cases where maybe it commission would like us to give it furtherer consideration than we may otherwise for pure seek wupurposes. then we have some further procedural steps outlined in how we distribute document said to the commission. we want to get the eir and supporting document tooz you in a timely fashion so you can review those and we'll have a presentation before you that spells out here the content of the presentations you would like to see. and then finally we added in here some point that we wanted to make sure the public is sclerthat the hearings before the hbc are for the purpose of

the body formialating comments on the draft eir and determine whether to do that and comment by the paublic at the hear brfgz the commission are not official comments on the eir. for oral comment to be taken into the consideration they need to be in the planning commission or in writing received in the public review for the project. that concludes may [inaudible] happy to answer questions you bhai v. thank you very much. >> i have one question. you talk about the notice of preparation at that tile you would know there is a impact to a historic resource >> it is most often the caiss we would know, but not always. that is why we sometimes just identify what the potential effects are. there are some

cases where if it isn't known whether a building or property is historic we may conduct a review to determine if it is historic. it is possible that review may be ongoing and may not have that conclusion, but generally we will wait to issue the nop before we know that question because it is so important in formialating our alternatives and moving forward in the review process >> thank you. >> commission hiland. thank you for your presentation, it is very informative. i have a question on the scoping of the alternatives. you said if there is a alternative that isn't feasible and doesn't get furthered, how does that determine if it is made? we see a lot of eir's that the preservation alternative is very slim and it seems to be i would think that if that was exploreed further in the

scoping or if there was another option that may have not been exploreed as well that it dropped off as infeasible. can you talk- >> to answer that question and may ask the city attorney to assist but my understanding is the principles we apply in evaluating alternatives for feasible is we areic looing at potential feeze aeblt. we don't make a absolute finding. thadetermination is made by the decision making body. they have to make findings they they reviewed the eir and if they reject an alternative they have to make find frgz the reason for that. we make a preliminary eval waigds of that and in doing so we look to what

does seek wusay about this and the feasibility of alternatives, so among the factors that can be taken into consideration in addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, infrastructure, plans or regulatory limitations and whether the project can reasonably control or require or have access if it is a alternative site or aspect of the project. there is no factor here that established a fixed limit on the scope of what is considered feasible. i think that when we begin the alternatives development process we begin what w the project sponsors objectives. what are they seeking to accomplish for the project. we work with the developer in developing those because we want to make sure they reflect

more general reflectives and not a specific unit count or a specific profit that they seek to achieve. what are the general principles. ovtimes they are seeking to make a profit. when we are considering the feasibility of alternatives we want to meet as many of the project sponsors objective as we can, beutwe don't have to satisfy everything 1 of them and there doesn't need to be economic feasibility per se. -there doesn't need to be-the run would be as great as it would with a proposed project. we are seeking to explain that in the eir's. what are the consideration that we came to and i think we are doing that better now than in the past. i would say that in some cases if

we have a memo where the preservation consultant that assisted us in formialating that, some of that explanation may be in memo and we'll make sure you get that. we understand that you would like that detailed, a detailed explanation. i hope that answers your question >> yes, the matter of a focused eir, i just-in the document before us today in the nop for the 907116th street and 1200th street project, the document discusses historical architectural resources will be the subject of a focused eir. can you describe how you arrived at that? is that a typical thing for you to do for

historic resources? >> i'm not familiar with that project specifically, but i can say that it is sometimes the case that when we review a project we find the only impact a projict may have is to historic resources and in that case we might conduct a initial study review and the check list of environmental topics that we go through and consider and we may find that the only potentially unavoidable significant impact is historic resource squz therefore we focus or review in the eir on that topic alone and maybe others just for informational purpose. that is what we mean by focused eir. most eirs are focus [inaudible] >> if you didn't do a focused

eir, if we wanted 1 to be done at what point would we do that? the way since i have been on the commission, the hpc staff comes to us and asks us for comment to be placed into the development of the draft eir for the project, so it would be at that time i guess or before, i don't know >> not sure i understand your question so plet me make sure i understand. you said when -[inaudible] in that situation where we intend to prepare a eir >> one or the other >> i think that this commission act and members of the commission can at any time provide comnlt to the planning department on what you would like to see in a eir and just in general to provide input in

our environmental review process. you can do that through comment to these hereings or conveyed to us in writing. i think it would be important to note that our goal in the environmental review process is to be as-streamline the process and be as efficient as possible in completing the review process in a timely manner and streamline the information that the public reviews. if we can focus a eir we will usually do that so if you see opportunity for that we welcome your thoughts on it cht >> thank you. that is good >> i do have a comant on the graphic materials just because the eir we saw come through last time was very rudimentary isometric dawing of alternatives. it would see-i

don't want to burden small praublgects, but large projeblths have the band width to do renderings and it should be a full 8 and a half by laevl per alternative. i remember the lest one i think the isometric was a inch or 2 tall. this is the market street thing. i would-it all most should be mandatory on projects anywhere near that scale, even half that scale. then i believe they tried to do something with the design, if they are inlaying it. >> xhirgzing hiland >> to naulo up on that, item 4 in the resolution. the graphic-the last sentence in item 4 on page 3,

the--[inaudible] my question is, may include. i think-can we be more explicit. is there a reason it is may? everywhere else it says should or shall and here is the only time it says may. >> i think that change is acceptable to make it consistent with the terminology. i think we were opting for should just in the sense that to be-to us that means we will do that unless there is a very good riseen reason not to >> do we [inaudible] >> we typically do request a flor plan even if it is a generic plan >> in order to do this evaluation they need flor plans, so they should provide

it >> i know we do the rendering elevation flor plan >> okay. xhirgzer jones >> i have a question on number 6, that is the facade. i would like to understand why it was worded the way it is. we say or you say facade retention generally constitute as demolition and so forth and i'm-would like it focus on constitutes which i thing may be a unfortunate word because retention constitutes a demolition, i think you may boo mean involves or includes or is a result of, but constitutes is i think not what you want. do you think that involves would be a acceptable replacement sfr for that wurbd >> i can speak to what i

understood this to be and what the statement is intend today convey for seek wupurposes [inaudible] we were intending to convey that facade retention is generally not enough to avoid a significant impact under seek wu. if you do just facade hutension alone that constitutes a adverse change to the resource with equal impact >> perhaps you should say that >> that is-- >> we can clarify that. >> i think that you may want to clarify because to the public when you say facade retention they may not know that on its own with no other retention. facade retention by

itself or only retaining the facade affbuilding may be more clear. >> i have one other. >> the second where as clause, an eir is integral, yousy that one? we have a in depth review of impact squz feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, may i suggest there is a comma after the word impact? the following and be eliminated and there is a comma after the word measures. >> those changes look like they will make this be more concise and we like consize >> better grammar too >> perhaps this is something that should be left to

discussion after public comment, but i wanted to talk about under number 6 the facade retention the sentence that talks about when it is demonstrated the overall project. maybe that is a conversation among the commissionersarve public comment >> no questions for staff at the time >> if i may, i would like to respond to commissioner pullmans statement there. i definitely would welcome any further elberation at this point because i think the resolution and policy statement here is largely very clear and easy to implement. i think of all the items this is the trickiest one. on a case by case basis any clarification here will be very helpful.

>> thank you. >> just want to make sure we don't forghet to consider the proposed revisions by the gttpa on landscapes and make sure this is part of the resolution. >> thank you. we will open public comment. do we have no cards? nope. any member of the public wish to speak, please come on up >> afternoon commissioners. dez rea smith with san francisco heritage and have a few copies here with some minor copy edits. it is just easier for you all to see. first we wanted to just reiterate or support for the development of those policy. we feel it is very important. 2 minor edits

that we would like to see made take place on page 1, the third paragraph that begins where is the requirement of seek wuto consider alternatives. we think it should be clarified that alternatives considered need to meet most of the project objectives as opposed to accomplishing all of the project objectives. we think it is important for project sponsors to know that. there is another edit, language should be inserted that says [inaudible] and then under the discussion of the facade retention on the second page, we also are concern would the last sentence of the first paragraph that says facade retention can be a means to improve the overall design of the project. we think that can

be interpreted subjectively and would like to see more development and examples where the commission feels that facade said have results have been reluctant in projects and have been successfully thank you you. >> good morning, everyone. commissioner kathy repeal howard golden gate park preservation alliance the magic words you know and are worried about for the last 45 minutes i understand this policy is in response to specific situations involving buildings, however, once adapted provide to landscapes the details are in the policy statement are beneficial and evaluating the impacts of the historic landscape i appreciate

the staff making copies i brought in copies 6 our requested landscape i found one more place where it could go after landscapers after the first whereas on page 2 there's one at the bottom another one at the bottom of page 1 and 3 on the back and very small thing it excludes floor plans i crossed out the words floor plans it can be floor plans plan i think you get the overall drift i appreciate your consideration and seeing none no other public comment we'll close public comment and bring it back to sxhaem. >> actually, i thank katherine howard i noted landscape when i

was going owe over this last time this critical a particularly with park merced that's an obvious one i thank her for that number of we're hoping about the retention i'm not how you demonstrate it something does or does not improve the overall project one commissioner johns remind me of the 1821 bush where the entire building behind the facade is an unfinished building the project restored the facade to have that wonderful building as a resource i believe it's anothers landmark

building so that's the case where it is fairly simple to say the facade retention alone would enhance the overall project i think another one that came up was the 1 on pine street to the east of van ness he forgot the fabulous but on the south side of the street the auto repair and what's that. >> two projects one on. >> to the east where you have a modern building a that's 12 stories and we had that little facade and saving that facade seems odd relative to that building that seems odd but again bout is in the eye of the beholder it's a hard thing to quantify if i something that's non-quantifyable something that looks at good i'm not sure how

to do this i don't know if it is something that's reviewed at the aa r.c. in that the process but, of course not happening at that time coming though the eir process not coming to us until after the act it's hard to understand how to quantify if any, that the notice of precipitation i'm wording in the process we can be notified there's a notice of precipitation on the project that provides the historic resource we can be involved in the early stage where we are reminded that's where the alternatives get developed i think in this case we might have an opportunity to make suggestions how to save the historic resource in an alternative it is not we're getting to it when it's done the

departments has made the decisions a about the alternative and come back and say if you certified the facade it would have been fine that's hard to make those kind of changes if we have notification of the notification precipitation i think we get some information but if it were publicly announced perhaps in comments somehow we know this one involves historic resources and the possible impacts because we're all very busy unless it's in the packet i may not have the time to spend the time but if the department knows it's significant and has an impact that gives us the impact to take a look at it it now this will help to resolve the design

issues and if i may think this because whether we don't want to see do you're saying having folks rely on us outside the chambers that's a tough route i'd love it if we have photo examples of projects around town okay. this was a true demo it worked for this building and give reasons where it worked i know that pine street not garage one but behind holder that's an example i mean the architecture digest is going to have an example there were reasons he didn't like it like pros and cons of a voting ballet of what works and what does i personally

wouldn't want to get involved i want to say here's what we the in the past you guys digest it and come up with alternatives that's a little bit longer process then ear doing today; right? like who put that package together >> if i may interject commissioners just a couple of short comments one for the purposes of that policy it is appropriate to strike the last sentence that we see something appropriate maybe appropriate on a case by case basis excuse me. least it at that the first sentence of the photograph at least it's providing

clarification on the policy and then to follow up on president hasz and commissioner pearlman's comments staff does kooths bring larger projects that have a historic preservation to the design for feedback during the notice preparedness we bring those to the commissioner meetings are the president and vice president and give them a hides up those are coming down the pipeline those are the effective way to give the commission and heads up it is working very well and i'll recommend that we certainly put for information into our coordinates folder to give all the commissioners a heads up that way if the