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 ] >> >> -

>> ladies and gentlemen, the chair has called the meeting to order can you please turn off electronic devices that will you

please see rise for the pledge of allegiance and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all madam president i'd like to call roll. >> mr. do. >> commissioner president loftus commissioner turman is excused commissioner marshall is in route arrest commissioner dejesus is excused commissioner mazzucco commissioner hwang commissioner melara we have quorum madam president also is the chief chief greg suhr. >> do we have a representative from the office of complaints. >> take a look around. >> welcome everyone to the mark

25 police commission i see a lot of folks from the neighborhood wanted to well, you all we had this meeting every fourth wednesday we go out to a different station we're going to talk about what we do we don't do that normally in city hall but we have have day jobs and people that care about public safety so thank you all for being here i'm going to start off by telling my commissioners he at the conclusion of that meeting saddling i'll ask we adjourn in member of santa fe police officer michael johnson was killed traeven yesterday i'll ask we adjourn and ask my colleagues to please introduce yourselves and tell the folks a little bit about what you do. >> starting with commissioner

hwang i'm i'll been a civil right the reason the deputy city attorney for the legal outreach that does work in 0 human trafficking and elderly abuse. >> commissioner mazzucco a former assistant district attorney and the united states district attorney and i practice in a firm i represent folks in director o.j. and i'm a native my brought in works too at parks station. >> commissioner melara. >> i'm the executive director of rally services for the st. francis memorial hospital and on the faculty of san francisco unified school district social work live in the terryville

district. >> we've been joined by the officer hicks and joe marshall is in route i'm suzy loftus i'm a former prosecutor here in san francisco a native san franciscans and currently work the california duff's and raising my 3 little girls not outer suspect you may see a redhead popping up later. >> the first is the consent calendar will be taken off calendar line item 2 reports to the city commission and 2a chefs report. >> chief suhr. >> good evening commissioner public a pleasure to be here before becoming a police officer had this was my place i was a delivery guy for a food services

running groceries around the neighborhood i'll take to the grave everything i've done at the fire station i have reports to be brief although it is important there are event paramount in late january when meeting with director hicks of ocii it was discovered there were 3 unidentified members felt police commission that were challenging rational homophobic slurs no mr. that has been convicted in federal court and is awaiting sentence awaiting to be turned in to federal custody in decisions with director hicks

the department through took reviewing literally thousands of text messages that came to us after the criminal prosecution was completed that is standard procedure you'll see cases trail a criminal prosecution and it was determined that 14 members may have inappropriate text messages with the former sergeant not all of the text were of a rational or homophobic nature and close to a dozen would be to be more closely examined 5 members have been resigned and no public contact until the investigation is finished i will accountability the lions share of the investigation to the commission with nothing short of a

recommendation of termination of any officers of such characters are in conflict that a police officer and with the minimum standards to perform their duties without jeopardizing other officers on a much better not the department is being recertified a participate in the recertification by the american society the crime lab this is a process we've passed before the processes have changed and different policies and procedures has this is where our crime lab needs to be under director jimbo bob sanchez and we'll be recertified it was brought to the captains

attention one the civility committed errors 90 in testing not awe home sharer to new practices we didn't know that the scope of this errors to date both moebz mechanics on personal leave will be reassigned and have to determine in the reviewing of the cases that the breath of this working with the city attorney's office to see if prosecution might be required next an officer involved shooting over and over on st. patrick's day at 7:00 p.m. at town hall on monday it involved a stolen vehicle the vehicle get stuck in traffic originally from the gas station the woman in

control of the vehicle turned the vehicle around and came the wrong way down venice avenue after collisions with other vehicles and on the sidewalk the officers discharged their firearms were in fear that someone 0 would be injured or killed so mr. brown did not survive here jourdz yesterday we were at garfield 3w4r5urgd and obviously in the past few years have activated did garfield mission district for the officers in playground as trying to make the mraurgsd police friendly and have a success story we want to model across the city friday we began to activate no

campus and southern station b will open at third street are saturday are morning at 6:00 a.m. and the modification will be set to do business an april 13th we've been doing tours of the building is a spectacular structure and it is the power noun the place couple of days 96 hours of sustainability so we can literally run a police department out of this building it equals with the safe earthquake it is a public building we'll graduate your first candidate k can do he did class and we'll take young people going to school in and

around san francisco and the cloosz look like san francisco and young 0 people that are interested in about law enforcement they have a full load of posting high school 12 unit a very good job for the public safety in the building and look sharply and lastly a dispatcher of the command staff for the chief told me it's been as many know the partitioned it's my she will be leaving but but not going far she's absolutely heroic of our youth and nonprofit programs and that's something she runs as a captain and love you and thank you for your service and the chief of staff in