wolfram and former commissioner hasz, that is so moved and passes. [ laughter ] >> i will present president andrew wolfram. [ applause ] >> congratulations, commissioners. >> we will rearrange the seating. >> we may, [ laughter ] . >> congratulations to your work and assistance. >> thank you, i set some goals for those two years.2 years. >> i really appreciate your vote of

confidence. i really enjoy my tenure. thank you. >> commissioners, item 6. questions? >> i unfortunately wasn't able to be at the last commission meeting. but i did want to recognize that at the history expo at the old mint, the last of february and first of march, the planning department historic preservation commission had a booth. i noticed there was a map there where people can pinpoint things they were interested in. i saw there was a respectable crowd outside of the booth talking to the people who were manning it and i thought it was extremely nice. >> thank you. commissioner hyland? >> i had two things. one for those who may or may not know this, i had the opportunity to go to washington d.c.,

that's where i was last hearing and we were doing legislative day for the american institute of architects and we had the opportunity to meet nancy pelosi's aids. mostly what i wanted to bring up today is advocate for three legislations and one of them was the continuance of the historic preservation tax credits. what you may or may not know is that nationally we are going through a whole tax reform that's being pushed by ryan out of wisconsin. anyway, but today is a deadline and unfortunately it's too late for our commission to do anything, but senator loom nar, i'm sorry, congressman and turner from

ohio have introduced legislation that would make the federal historic preservation tax credit permanent that would take it outside of the tax reform and they at the close of businesses the last day to actually reach out to our legislators. so i just wanted to bring that up if people can reach out before 5:00 eastern. >> what's the legislation? hr what? >> i can forward that e-mail. yes. >> okay. that was one thing. the second thing is we met the cultural heritage assets committee met earlier today and had an update for you. >> christina from the small business office and was passed on march

10th. it's waiting for the mayor's office. it's the legacy business registry legislation. it did pass and waiting for the mayor's signature. the original legislation had tax included. it has been removed. the idea is that as the legislation gets further and the small business commission, as it's being put into the purview of the small business commission there to bring back recommendations by -- september 30th of how this registry is going to be branded marketed. currently the tax incentives or any other kind of incentive that our committee is hoping to create as goals coming out of our effort is currently not in the

legislation. they also changed the definition of a legacy would be and they changed that and added backen that it would be a business nominated by the mayor, board of supervisors or small business commission. that's another little tweak to the legislation. if it's a business that's been in existence for 30 years with no break more than 2 years, then it will be eligible. it will be tools to -- to be nominated. we did have a good meeting. we had charted out our next 6 months. so for april, may and june we are going to have further presentations to our committee. in july we are going to try to pull those together and identify

what the goals of our committee will be. in july and august try to create, right to reach out to more of the community neighborhood meetings. we are working with legal and with jonas about how we can attend the community hearings without while we are still adhering to the sunshine ordinance requirement. >> commissioner hyland, if i may i actually conferred with our city attorney on that subject matter and she's actually here and prepared to respond to that. >> hi, victoria wong. city attorney's office. i think the legal requirements will depend on the exact format of the way in which the members of the committee wish to participate in the community meetings and whether these meetings are taking the place of regular hearings or you are there to

just listen. so we can discuss the specifics of what you may have in mind or what the different possibilities are and what the public notice and other requirements would be based on those different scenarios. >> so lastly, i don't know where our advanced calendar in the agenda, i see it's scheduled for april 1st. so we may need to reschedule the next hca meeting for the third, wednesday of the month. >> do we have an agenda item on april 1st? >> it's the 20th. >> two items on the agenda. >> okay. commissioner hasz? >> so just to going back a little bit i want to thank tim frye publically for my time as president and the

amount of time tim put in to helping me reach these goals and putting up with my philosophy on stuff and why i would come to ideas and etc. any ways, tim, thank you very much. i appreciate all of your time. thank you. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further we can move on to your regular calendar. you have one item agendaized item 7 for 2014-001501 crv, the presentation -- preservation alternatives policy. >> before i turn it to the planning with environmental division, i wanted to recap what we have addressed since our last hearing. there is a revised version in front of you that is different and it's a clean copy and

slightly different than what was in the packet and we have some copies for the public. the only change between the two documents is the second paragraph of the preservation alternatives section. and the language is essentially the same, but the city attorney has helped us reword a few things just to make it clear. so then that is there for your review. from the last hearing a few things that we addressed or we feel like we've addressed from the hpc and public comments is one. the preservation alliance to request cultural landscapes and i believe we were all copied on an e-mail that the alliance believe we have addressed their comments successfully. we've also included san francisco

architectural heritages comments within the revisions while not word for word, we think we have addressed the substance of their comments but heritage is here and they can let us know if we have thought fully addressed what they believe should be included. and then finally the commissioners had a variety of comments as small edits that we have all incorporated but primarily there was a broad discussion about facade retention. we left the meeting with an understanding that the commission wants to have a discussion about facade retention more as a design discussion, but will schedule that for a future date. at this time though as part of the resolution, there seems to be an interest in moving that facade retention discussion minimizing it and including it in the partial tournament. lisa is here to walk you

through the resolution and any of the details that you think warrant discussion. but i'm also available for questions. thanks. >> good afternoon, congratulations to the new president and vice-president of the commission. i'm lisa gibson with the planning department. my walk through of the changes are very brief because there are not too many to describe. starting with no. 1 under preservation alternatives. this is where we first addressed the changes reflecting the cultural landscapes, the preservation alternatives, the second line there, says that it would, if the project results in significant impacts on historical resource, it previously said structures. this is where we change the

resource to be more broad. there are other locations where we did similar change in the second paragraph under preservation alternatives. the parenthetical where we changed from a building to a resource and further on there are several other locations where it went from structures to resource. also under item no. 1, preservation alternatives, we added some emphasis that alternatives don't need to meet every problem objective. this is a request. you can see the second sentence there that indicates alternatives under ceqa do not need to meet all projects. the second item preservation alternative we already discussed one of the changes going from structure to resource. the second paragraph is new, a new paragraph as tim indicated is something that we've added to shift the focus from a broader

discussion of facade retention to more abbreviated retention to assigned consideration. it says in cases of the resource evaluated the structure as one partial of the eir should include the facade and incorporate set backs to allow for an understanding of the overall height and masses of resource. it may not allow for the resource conveyance if signature and -- significant, would not be a partial alternative. we hope that captures the interest of the commission and we would be interested in your thoughts on that. moving on to item 4, there are some changes here that reflect the comments on the level of information provided to describe and

illustrate preservation alternatives. so, under item four we added the description should be detailed and for all preservation alternatives should be detailed and the last few lines under item 4 we explained the plans need to be legible to clarify that and the sections need to sufficiently be at a level to adequately depict the scope of the alternatives. we also under item 5, express that the explanation of the preservation alternatives development should be detailed. we've limited the previous item no. 6 which is facade retention and we've numbered everything else accordingly. those are the changes and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> commissioners, questions? >> i think you read the wrong one. >> thank you.

>> i couldn't follow. >> that is why there was discussion in the room. i do apologize for that. so let me correct that the revised paragraph under partial preservation alternatives item 2 is as follows. i apologies for the confusion. as many historic may eliminator reduce for ceqa purposes. therefore it is not a partial preservation alternative. however depending on a particular project and in combination with other features, retaining a facade facing the public right-of-way for allowing to the understanding of the historic massing of feature for a useful partial alt ernative in cases by case draft by

eir. that concludes my presentation. >> commissioners questions? >> just one minor question. when we are dealing with a landscape, we don't have language that talks about the introduction -- destruction of a landscape. i don't know how critical because every project is on a case by case basis. i don't know that i ever read any eir about the changes in a landscape for a park. i don't know that it's critical that we add anything here. but given the fact that we've taken out about structures i don't know if there should be another word or two in that paragraph to handle that. >> any other questions before we go to public comment.

( any member of the public please come forward. >> hello, as mr. frye mentioned with did comments at the last hearing we had a few recommendations and we are happy to see that this has been incorporated into this subversion and we are in support of this version of the legislation. we feel this will be very fortunate -- important and useful moving forward. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. back to the commission. are there comments, questions? >> i think they did a good job in summarizing what we were involved in in the kind of rambling discussion. >> do i have a motion? >> i have a question on

assuming we keep the second paragraph of item 2. in the revised assuming we keep that in the resolution, do we also want to agendaize and make the next step. we were talking about having a design discussion or policy about facade retention. is that something that should be in discussion and brought to the full? >> if i might ask ms. smith because sf heritage is hosting a symposium on this. if that's scheduled, who is coming because maybe we sort of send representative to that and start with that? >> ms. smith, could you speak to that?

>> san francisco heritage. afc -- as of now it's a policy white paper. we have not scheduled a meeting. it's mainly our ideas are we have an issues committee at the policy committee that meets, brain storms and produces policies, papers and recommendations on policies. >> i misunderstood. i thought it was more of a public outreach. >> thank you. don't go. >> commissioner john's? >> do you know what your schedule is for doing that white paper? >> i don't have a specific timeline yet but it's our top issue at the moment. so probably within the next month. >> well, when you get a better idea, could you tell us because that

might be of interest to some or all of the commissioners as part of this other discussion that we are planning on having? >> yes. definitely. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> commissioner pearlman? >> my comment about the language in here, is there any interest in adding a few words that in many cases retention of a historic facade alone would it be, i just, again with landscapes, i don't know what the right words would be. >> are you saying it's a feature or something? >> yeah. i actually like the language in the paragraph above where it said, in the middle of the paragraph, that would preserve as many of the features that convey a historic significance. that takes it out of the discussion. >> i thought the issue is the facade retention may not be, you know that, and therefore we are saying that in a

buildings case we have the opportunity or the preparer of the eir that is opportunity to discuss with staff on a case by case bases. >> what if we added in many cases of the resource facade alone, so it implies the rule is more broadness. >> that would do it for me. >> yeah. >> did you hear that? >> yeah. just a couple of words that i think would do it. >> lisa gibson. i would like to say that the intent here was that we had a first paragraph that was more again addressing partial preservation alternatives and we have in there language would apply generically to any impacted resource. so landscapes would be in that broader umbrella. it could be considered. the second paragraph is intended to address when it is

the resource it's is a structure. and in the previous language, we i think were more specific to that that we clarified that in the structure, the second paragraph is intended to apply. perhaps we can add that back in. >> perhaps i'm mentioned something is that never happens. >> there was a discussion about it. >> about all the landscape issues? >> yeah. >> okay. that's an example. >> and i recall certainly that we've evaluated the potential for cultural landscapes to exist and whether they are repaired for the marina project some time ago and there was not an impact and we can't facilitate an alternative to address that. if

there were a significant impact to a cultural landscape we would address that impact. >> do we want to say something like "in many cases like retenant features facade retention because that's the question. facade retention seems like a minimal amount of the structure. i don't know if that's getting too specific and maybe it is too specific. but minimal may seem like partial. >> i think that would be better to have implications. >> or no word at all. >> i think if we say historic features such as retention then it can apply to something that isn't specifically, i

don't know. that seems like a way to do it. >> it can be a hitching post >> that makes sense. >> commissioners, tim frye, that would be for the first sentence so that second paragraph to rephrase it to say," in many cases retentions of the historic features. >> any others? >> i move. >> then there is a motion to adopt this resolution as amended on that

motion. commissioner hasz, yes, commissioner john's, yes, commissioner matsuda, yes, commissioner hyland, yes, commissioner wolfram. that passes 6-0. i have no other matters on your agenda. >> can i say one thing. i think we might have made a mistake here. are you discussing the problem of that sentence on this? >> it feels like we are saying the same thing twice now. >> yes, tim frye department staff and the other thing we were discussing is because we introduced features then the rest of the paragraph is about facade retention. if the commission is open to it, i think we are capture the general intent of the discussion of the vote but we may need to massage a couple of the words here. >> we should then retract that

vote and settle on the exact verbiage now and set a motion to continue working on the language. we should retract that item. >> can we open that item? >> we certainly can, chair. you will be reopening it, but through the chair reopening item 7, if we could have' vote to retract that previous motion. >> motion to retract that motion. >> i second it. >> thank you, on the motion to retract the previous motion for item 7, commissioner hasz, yes, commissioner john's, yes, commissioners matsuda, ye, commissioner pearlman, yes, commissioner hyland, yes. that resolution is hereby retracted. >> so do we need to reopen

public comment or can we go to a new motion? okay, can i have a new motion to how we want to approve this resolution. >> or direct to staff. >> mr. frye, we were conferring about some of the language. i think it would be helpful to back up a second and get a better understanding of what the commission would like us to achieve. is it a matter of making it more general or -- our approach was the commission still had a desire to call out some aspect of the facade retention in the policy. so we shrunk it, added it to partial preservation and the first paragraph is meant to be very gentle -- general and the second paragraph to cases where facade maybe an

option. the easiest to do is to replace the second paragraph. >> i was going to open up that conversation. do we want to eliminate that second paragraph or make sure the resolution has facade retention. >> that was the basis of our discussion and sort of started it. i think it has to be wrapped in there. >> maybe we'll just leave it alone. >> i would make a recommendation to leave it alone. >> it's fine with me. >> does this mean we retract it. >> can we have a motion? >> i would like to make a motion to approve as it is presented to us. >> thank you. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the resolution for the

preservation alternatives policy. on that motion, commissioner hasz, commissioner john's, yes, commissioner pearlman, hyland, wolfram. yes. that passes 6-0. >> before we close the hearing i would like to thank commissioner hasz for his great service as president. fantastic job. this hearing is adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>.

>> and the president thank you all for being here tonight today is march 17, 2015, sorry just trying to keep track there's a few housekeeping things before we get started please silence all electronic devices. not to interrupt the meeting if you're here to make public comment and want to make a statement we have pink speaker cards please fill out with our names. >> thank you to sfgovtv and media services