whatever it is called i'd like to see together with the slaptd treatment of the roof potentially landscaping in the building rather than the patio coming dribble to the property line on both sides that allows screening for everyone including a more pleasant view from elizabeth street to the back of their homes looking at something that could be a green roof in constructing green roof i know you're familiar with the roof and maybe that will be the minimum we'll expect for this is the conflicting use i'm not saying it is but the responsibility is on the mr. president, creating the maximum

benefit transition to residential. >> so. >> may i make a comment. >> i'd rather have mr. levi explain about the roof. >> if i may add one question on top of that that is pertinent the fence you've mentions needs a variance i couldn't find that on the plans nor the the reference of notice it was my understanding the vanities is for the height of the fence so if you can show me that fence open the plans. >> so on the upper photo on the right hand is the fence in question as it exists and the requests to heighten it was not

part of the question 18th and commissioner moore we discussed the odd roof and the work is being done there is drainage material to support the plant life and in regards to the small patio it can be modified relative to neighbor privacy and having a bay window as mentioned in life as far as the people that on elizabeth street are concerned that bay window need not a have west side view to protect the people and for the maker of the motion. >> we don't have a motion. >> i want to listen first particularly to mr. richard idea of phasing conditions because

we're going from speed 10 to 90 miles per hour and this is an credential nature of the approval which i'll be interested if you want to go back. >> commissioner johnck. >> one of the things for the neighbors is let's see work in the past after we've had those issues we've had mr. paul or whoever sit down and say look what do we want and what can we get we've got mr. paul and you're shaking your head and willing to engage with the we had people coming here in the last meeting so i make the offer would you be willing to engage

with the neighbors and we can sing kumbaya and with the rear yard there's a lot here if you're willing to come back we can make a decision tonight. >> i'm open to talking with the neighbors if this commission wants to bring it back that's okay. >> i threw this out we're far apart here. >> mr. sanchez. >> want to follow up on the questions whether or not a use of this size was necessary i think someone mentions the occupancy load for this space what was the number? 75 and how many feet what is on the floor plan now?

>> the calculation is 72 occupants with three staff and i would say there's been a lot of planning configurations but the number of feet in the drawing in front of you. >> i have a quick count it smells more than 70 or 80 from - >> it is also been every time configured it is about what fits in the illusion and no other person talked about meeting with the neighbors but i'll go ahead and make a motion to have

another meeting if you want me to participate i'll be happy to do that's the best we have in front of us. >> i second the motion. >> is there a date and as soon as the calendar allows. >> april 23rd or the 16th we can do it i know that mr. smith will be out next week out of the office so probably look at perhaps two weeks maybe the 16th. >> i guess - >> the 23rd. >> i guess kind of a word of caution it is in the interests not to have issues after the business is open we know they don't want to have issues so

let's get this together and figure out. >> commissioners april 23rdrd. >> mr. levi i want to participate since your ultimately having the client that would like to stay open late at night i'm concerned the skylights that are wonderful at night nobody spills out over night when the rear yard in the neighborhoods are dark i myself have experienced frequently how windows and lights face the wrong way and is a nuisance that's onsite an issue if you want to comment i'd appreciate that. >> if i could get the overhead i'm aware we did speak with charles about the acoustic

they're not operable skylights and laminated glass that's a reasonable concern that 9 conceptual design is a behalf he would ceiling so this we can have the skylights in the evening. >> at least you've you thought about it i appreciate our answering the question. >> sure. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second continue this matter until april 23rdrd. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero zoning administrator. >> i'll clarify one. >> april 23rd i declare that

date. >> thank you zoning administrator. >> could you clarify what will transfer on the 23rd we have a public hamburger auto yes be reagenda decided with another hearing and hours of construction be addressed as well and ma'am at this point, we're - you can speak to the planner and they'll clarify everything. >> commissioners that places you on general public comment. >> is there any general public comment seeing none, public comment is closed and i want to wish commissioner moore a happen birthday. >> yeah. >> happy birthday. >> meeting is adjournedback to the

san francisco historic preservation commission meeting for wednesday march 18, 2015, >> i would like to remind members of the audience to silence any

mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. >> i would like to take roll. commissioner hasz, hyland, wolfram, john's, commissioner matsuda and commissioner pearlman. we expect commissioner johnck to be absent. >> public comment. public >> tomorrow we are conducting in the tenderloin, we are focusing on two national registered districts than the

nationally located district for broader outreach to communities where neighborhoods are eligible. meeting will be held tomorrow from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. many it will be a workshop format where property owners can come to ask question and we focused a pretty large notification to property owners. >> depending on the workshop,

we will keep you up to date. >> item 2. requesting of staff to report back on a matter. >> i have nothing to report. however i want to mention to you that the planning commission is very interested in the resolution on your agenda today and we will be sharing that with them once it's passed. there may be an opportunity to hear from that to the planning commission at a future date to discuss the details of the resolution. the one item i did want to share with you is part of the staff report and you are probably aware the advisory council or historic preservation is meeting in san francisco and they are taken their organization on the road and not meeting in dc but having their

meeting here. right now on angel island they are hosting a listening session. the primary focus for this meeting is about social and cultural heritage. we just had our social and cultural heritage asset meeting this afternoon. i will try get as much information from that listening session as i can. there may be meetings. i have an opportunity to participate and i will report back to you if anything comes out of that committee. they will be presenting their reports at that meeting tomorrow morning. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. >> mr. frye, i have one question, announcement. i was coming home late last night from the hockey game and one

of the facades on pine came down. they that had whole area cordoned off. >> no, there's a high speed chase. so it had nothing to do with the building. this brings up the question. do we make them rebuild it? >> that's a good question. there are ceqa implications and policy implications to figure out what is the best course of action. i will say that somewhat related now that we have a compliance staff member, we are talking with the zoning administrator about certain policies on whether or not to require somebody to build something if it's been demolished or neglected and some of those policies will be

coming to you this year hopefully by the summer and maybe at that time is a good opportunity to discuss situations like you are bringing up. i know, was it the columns at the san francisco center, there was a lawsuit >> no. the front part of the building. >> when we have that discussion can you bring some of the information because some of the analysis done was very good. i read it about 10 years ago. that would be good to rereview as part of that discussion. >> commissioners that will place us under commission matters.

announcements. >> no announcements. consideration of adoption? >> seeing none, any member of the public wish to comment. seeing none. >> move to adopt. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes for march 4, 2015. commissioner hyland, yes, commissioner john's commissioner matsuda, commissioner pearlman, commissioner wolfram and commissioner president hasz. that passes unanimously 6-0 and puts you on item 5. election of officers, in correspondence with the rules and regulations of the san francisco historic preservation commission the president and vice-president of the commission shall be elected at the first regular meeting of the historic preservation commission

held after the d. a. first day of january each year. >> i elect mr. wolfram to be commissioner and commissioner hyland to be vice-president. >> second. >> commissioners, there is a motion and second to elect commissioner wolfram president and commissioner hyland vice-president. on that motion, commissioner hyland, yes, commissioner john's, yes, commissioner pearlman, commissioner 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