this o.m.b., which is kind of what we're going to be experiencing here if the state steps in. and the only piece that was really preserved was cabbagetown, i don't know if you know toronto or not but people go to cabbagetown and, wow this is what the neighborhood looked like. and the buildings from the 1860s and all of those brownstones, they're gone, absolutely gone. so i think that is what we're looking at the mirror and staring ourselves into a future that i'm not sure that we can really fully appreciate what's going to happen. i think that to commissioner johnson -- that's one thing to understand the state mandates and how they intersect with where we're going here. whether things need to be on the register to be exempt from some of these laws. whether they're eligible. i'm really worried about why we have any buildings in 2019 that are still ca category b. we should have the city fully surveyed and the developer should know what is an a and a c

and there's certainty. and everything is not a fight and we uncover a rock, oh, there's a resource here. that seems like we're kind of henning and pecking it, you know? so i really want to understand the budget and the work program and get the city surveyed in light of s.p.50 and all of the other things that are going to come down the line. so to commissioner johnck's point, are we getting enough information? no, absolutely not. we get this letter the night before or it's handed over the rail and the alternative are adequate and we go, what does that mean? the rich discussion that you have around the buchanan street project which we'll be hearing in two weeks is really informing me of kind of, wow, they said -- the public says, and the neighborhood says that it's this but the experts say that it's that. so we have like a chief building inspector come and represent the building inspection department. and we have a question about what happened to a building in the past in terms of permitting and work that's been done and work exceeded. but we don't get that kind of a report from you.

so if one of you could stand up in front of us and say we debated this buchanan street project and this antique store and the public comment was this and this is what we determined -- it really informs us. so that's going to be my litmus test. so it will come to us. what i'll get is a letter that is saying that it's adequate but i have to start the conversation as i sit in that seat over there. so i don't think that we have enough information from you folks. and the other thing is in terms of the charter of the h.p.c., i'm a little bit confused. you're right, i think that you should be commenting on more, especially as it's ceqa a categories but why did we draw a line at article 10 and 11, when we did the prop and why didn't it allow you to comment or say you're responsible for ceqa category a structures and national register districts? i'm confused as to why that is. because historical preservation is historic preservation. so that's another one.

and my last comment is in the five years that i have been up here, the death squad has been pretty active, right? my effectiveness of the entire process in the lawful -- in the lawful context is how many preservation alternatives have actually been chosen and used and built? i'm aware of only one that's been chosen and i'm not aware of any other ones that have been elbraced by the developer as a good project that can meet the project objectives. so that's something that we're doing all of the due dill jens, preservation staff and e.i.r. and the environmental review staff -- world class, absolutely. but i just feel that we're on a little bit of -- you know, it's a check the box item because nothing ever seems to get saved. >> commissioner fong. >> thank you. and speaking about cabbagetown and versus sourdough bread...

certainly, it's unique. i just want to make a broad comment. this is incredibly for me sitting here technical information and i can't help but to hear these comments and share a bit of confusion. to a developer whether it's a sophisticated developer or someone trying to do a home remodel, it's got to be very, very daunting to figure this out. and i know that is the whole goal of this conversation, this joint meeting, which i think is great, but overall from both planning as well as h.p.c., we've got to do a better job i think of public outreach and information to take the mystery out of what we can out of it. so that when job comes in and the expectation level of what they are required to go through is a little bit better understood. i think that it would make everybody, including folks here who deep dive into it, to have a better understanding and confidence. i'm not sure that we'll get to it, but i have more questions about the legacy business program. maybe just a little background of some of the benefits. but we can get to that later.

>> commissioner hillis. >> sure. thank you for the comment. i mean, i agree with commissioner black, i think that you're not limited necessarily to the ceqa analysis. and i would take that -- because that's where i think that we struggle or perhaps a project -- and i go back to 450 farrell and the eventual demolition of that building. i actually believe that we made the right decision in that to demo that building and to allow for a significant housing project to be built there. and i get that that is open for debate. there maybe may have been folks on the preservation commission who didn't believe that that building should have been saved. but it's also the nuance of that. like, where -- is there an alternative there that could have worked better in keeping the facade of the building and stepping it back? again, in this case i thought that the facade of that building kind of was awkward and probably

wouldn't have worked with the housing project. but that's why i would have wanted to hear, i think, more from the preservation commission and the preservation staff as to what an alternative that may not have been an e.i.r. or may have been a mix of e.i.r. alternatives in that to kind of guide us in the eventual design of what was approved in that project. and, again, i watched the 333 california debate that you all had and i think that you all had different views on that project, from "that's a great resource" to, you know, the housing might -- you know, to be better on that site without that building there. and so getting that, i got more from watching that hearing then necessarily from the report that we got or the letter that we got. and, again, you all may not agree on what may happen.

and so getting that varied opinion i think was helpful to me and it will continue to be helpful to me as we look at that project. so that's what i'd like to see and i don't know how that comes to us or it may just be, you know, that we watch the hearings and kind of take into account your debate. or get some summary of what different commissioners said to factor in that project i think is helpful to us. that's what i'd like to see more of and not just checking the ceqa box. even if there's a project -- i mean, i don't know if you get our calendar or look at our calendar -- if there's a project not coming to you but we're taking up that you think that we're going the wrong way on from an historic resource, take it up. you know, and tell us. i think that we would value that -- that input as we do from heritage and others when they speak on a project. so that's my thought. i think that it's those projects that we're going to cover in the next item that i think that kind

-- i mean, that's 450 o'farrell and the smaller-scale uses that people now want to convert to housing. we've got the challenge that we need housing in the city and we want to build housing and it's an underutilized site and how to do it in the best way to respect the integrity of the building. but does it? and there's no -- beyond the grades that we have, once something is historic, it's kind of about the same level as city hall and we're going to not demo city hall. but some other building that is historic, maybe it's okay to demo because of the housing that will be developed outweighs that building much so it's good to get that nuanced opinion from you all as we take these projects up. so thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i just want to start out by thanking you for the work that you do, it's been incredibly helpful in my tenure to go back and to watch your hearings and

your debates. and, you know, i want to just echo everything that my fellow commissioners have said, more please, yes please, to hearing your opinions and perspectives. i want to kind of piggyback off of commissioner hillis' comments that i think that, you know, we do have this really difficult balance of trying to figure out how to stabilize our most vulnerable communities, how to preserve the character of san francisco. and how to do development in a time in which we're writing history right now, right? and i hope that when history looks back at this time that it sees that we helped to make decisions that helped to make sure that every type of person has the opportunity to live, work and play in san francisco. that balance is a really difficult balance with competing interests and perspectives and yet that is our wonderful task. and so we need you on that collaboration. i think that a big piece of that

is being able to make sure that we have the tools that we need to figure out how to balance those decisions. i think that feasability is -- better understanding feasability is a perfect one and better understanding what alternatives are that haven't been shown to us that would preserve while also doing service to the folks that are going to be living in housing development. and i think that it's really about something that we're going to talk about next which is safeguarding our living cultural heritage. both in our cultural district, and, again, in building housing that creates opportunities for folks to continue to be weaved into the fabric of san francisco. and so i am just really interested in ongoing and kind of philosophical and practical conversations about how we protect and what we protect and getting clear for that on all parties. and then making sure that we're protecting our living cultural history along with our historic

history. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> thank you to everybody. the quality of conversation, also the first time that we're sitting together, makes me feel that we have many more meetings to really come into a smooth interactive way by which both of us are doing is supportive to our -- to our obligations. i want to pick out comments i have heard from you and if i don't pick you out it doesn't mean that it doesn't strike me as something that i'm interested in. commissioner johns put out three adjectives in his sequence, useful, timely, and then a form that is usable. i pick on one -- timely -- no. in the form that it is usable -- no. useful -- no. because it starts with timely. a three-quarty page opinion from a group of highly skilled individuals as an advisory to me

with no depth of why that resolution was formulated undercuts what you do and it does not inform me. in order for you as experts in the critical advisory role, i need to really know how you think and how you looked at those things which we are to judge on, because each of your opinions on each subject point is something that i need to hear in order to say, yes, i agree with that, that's a very important observation. i get some summary, i don't know who writes it, but it doesn't do anything. i may sound critical but i just want to have to say of what i do hear when it's either handed to me while the meeting is going on or i find it somewhere in the bottom of my package. it's a critical comment but we need to do this, and it does not have to be more work, it just needs to be a assembled for me.

and the second point is from commissioner perlman. you're getting alternatives which are considered adequate. and i'm asking is adequate good enough? is "enough" sufficient? that's basically at the core of everything that we do. for me "od "adequate" is not god enough, and adequate barely makes it. and "enough" is just not sufficient. and i ask all of us to spend more time with you informing us of how this comes together and where your evaluators are to have something come to us that is recommendable but not just adequate. because in the struggle between the financial objectives of the city as an economy to move and as maintaining that the city was a recognizable and significantly better preserved past and the

majority of citizens in the u.s. have done, i think that our charge, our charter, getting more difficult every day. and i'm going to jump forward and pick up on the comment that came from the audience and that is that a clear understanding of category a, b and c. particularly the "b" category is age eligible. you should be getting every month a huge number of additional buildings and who spends enough time as we're sitting two years, four years, six years, eight years on a commission, to keep up what has become age eligible in the time that we have been sitting here? and through what lens are we looking at age eligible? certain things come to us where the public is speaking about a building that means a lot to them, but it's still only somewhere in the age eligible but it has not risen to

something which we have looked at more closely. and we're falling into the difficult situation. the public is basically our sounding board. and the public is one of the highest measures of why we're sitting here. we need to take that into consideration. i would like to combine that with increased knowledge and feedback from you on what age eligible really means as an obligation for taking the next look under the microscope. i'm throwing out abstract ideas here but i see you all nod. you are in a position of knowing that that is an ever increasing responsibility. and i think that we would like for you to join us in some of these tough discussions and some of the tough decisionmaking. picking up on commissioner richard's words about -- what did you say -- it's an increasing graveyard? >> we're the death squad. [laughter]. >> that's the same meaning.

there was one other thing -- oh,... commissioner perlman asked -- extended an invitation to discuss on design. that is more difficult. one is for us to listen and some of us can participate more in the discussion and design, but you as professionals bring a practice and a thought to it that we can appreciate and ask questions to. but it cannot be as much involved unless it becomes a question on a designer's taste. you're bringing the technical knowledge to it that we need to respect, particularly as a composition of your commission, based on slightly differentiators as our own. we represent the broadest spectrum of public while you're representing different aspects of design focused expertise. so i wanted to support that

idea. i just want to caution that we spend more time on how we can constructively do that and having participants who can speak but can not influence what you decide to do. so i support that. and commissioner black spoke about more detail on the alternatives and i would agree with that. and there are many other points, i don't want to hog the microphone. we have lots of things, i could go on and on and i will leave it at that for the moment. >> thank you. i will weigh in before you get a second turn, commissioner richards, if that's okay. >> sure. >> so there's two bucket of things that i'd like to talk about and in the first is a yes to everything that my fellow commissioners have said and that falls into the bucket of processed stuff that we need to have a process where we hear from you in a timely manner that

is, you know, efficient and effective in terms of our deliberations that yields a better product. and, you know, there's also -- in terms much the of the full st falls under "a, b and c" is useful for us and for the development community and for the public. i think that miss schoutis since i have been on this commission sounding the alarm and continuing with the death of a thousand cuts how we're losing the fabric of neighborhoods by one demolition, one demolition, you know. and so having a structure where we can order where the stock is, and you know, what we can do would be tremendously useful. so i think that those are a process things that i think that, you know, staff is open to and can be done sort of easily i think. i'm looking at you and you're

like, yeah, sure. but i think that it's easier than the bigger issues. so what i am particularly interested is a little bit more macro. and that is, you know, that we as a commissioner johnson said in her comments, we live in a fast-moving, living city with a history of -- it hasn't been good, you know, with a lot of stuft. so we have -- a lot of stuff. so we have demolished entire neighborhoods and displaced populations that have had a profound effect on those populations and their outcomes. you know, the way that kids graduated from school and the economic outcomes of those populations. so if looking back the redevelopment of the west end addition wasn't really that long ago. so looking forward towards the future, i'm wondering, you know, this -- that the pictures that

are full of pictures that are important to us in terms of how we live in this city. and they're important about the corridor of north beach, chinatown, we do occasionally see buildings like the redevelopment of the pingu.n. housing that is very important to the cultural fabric of, you know, china town. or i would argue the laundromat on mission street is to the mission. so, you know, in the context of what is happening to development on third street, in chinatown, in the mission, you know, how do we look at cultural preservation? how do we aggregate, you know, facades, awnings, cultural corridor, and all of those things, to really get to a policy of preserving time and space for how we live without

also getting in the way of, you know, business development. because we know that in the age of amazon, businesses have to keep up and to do things differently, right? so for us it is a fast-moving calculation that takes into account economic development and workforce and transportation and buildings and at the same time we want -- we do want to preserve, you know, what we have -- the wonderfulness of the city. and the more macro issue, how do we communicate those issues that have to do with the preservation of neighborhoods and the context of neighborhood plans? and pier 70, the port, you know, all of those things that are happening that are moving fast and also with the process improvements that would allow us to weigh in and to hear your technical and also your, you

know, knowledge about the specific buildings that we are looking at. okay, commissioner richards. >> i'll be brief because i spoke a lot. to commissioner's point and we had an article in the chronicle this morning and it was breath taking with the shifts in population in the cities that are more diverse and less diverse. san francisco is becoming less diverse over time. and it's pretty scary. on the cultural preservation piece, maybe it's not a ceqa issue but i would hope that this body with the board of supervisors could go to our state assembly people or senators and say, you know, there's this thing called cultural preservation and maybe it's not strictly by ceqa on who slept here and owned it or whatever for the categories. but there should be an allowance for preserving culture that is outside of what we have today. because i'm worried about cultural preservation too. and one last point, in the

context of the budget, and i think that you folks managed the preservation piece, i know when we did the density bonus program that it covered 30,000 parcels. i remember i think that it was kiersten and paolo got up and said here's the 30,000 parcels and they kept peeling it away and these are the rent controlled ones and these are the historic ones was one of them. and we eventually got the number down to 215 parking lots is what it only applied to. but somewhere there's got to be a map, a database, of the city that has been surveyed and what has been identified and what districts. and the reason that i'm asking that is that we just -- in the light of sp-50 and our things going on, our market had survey data and we looked at the octearia plan and we said that our neighborhood is a california registered eligible district. it's been 10 years now since the plan has actually been -- you know, the survey was done. so we contracted a contract to

go back to commissioner moore's points the age eligible ones now, and 10 years have moved by and re-survey the ones that you didn't before and survey the rest of the neighborhood and list it on the register. and other neighborhoods we're talking to as well, there's context statements for eureka valley and others and so i want to understand the level of surveying and how many contact statements. and, like, how this all fits together and where we're at. >> commissioners, the department staff. if i may respond through to the president. >> go ahead. >> we are prepared to -- that's a great comment, commissioner richards. and we're prepared to present an overview of the city-wide program to the historic preservation commission for phase one at the end of february. we'd be happy to come to the planning commission and give you that same presen presentation ad the same time if your calendar allows. or, if not, we can directly respond to those questions. which neighborhoods have context statements, which cultural

communities have context statements. so we can identify how migration patterns have progressed over time. but also where have we surveyedd properties and where are there deficiencies. >> right. judging commissioner perlman was on after you. >> i think that most of what i wanted to say was really -- you know, specific to points. and i don't think that we have the time to really get into that. thank you though. >> sounds good. to the point on the survey, when you bring that before us, tim, if you could also give us your best assessment on a timeframe of what needs to be done, how can it get done -- how long will it take with the resources that have been allocated. and how many additional resources could be used to get it done in a year or two years. >> i have done that calculation so we'll be happy to share that with you. it's a wide range. >> okay. so i have three comments. one is in regard to our charter.

and to commissioner richard's point about our review and comment and why it's not broader. i just don't think that review and comment is adequate, especially on the draft e.i.r.s that involve demolition of historical resources. so i don't have a specific proposal yet but we need to explore how the historic preservation commission can have more than just a review and comment role in regard to that. i would like us to actually have a vote so that any dissenting votes could -- could those reasons before those dissent votes could then be shared with the commission. that would elevate the conversation. the draft e.i.r.s that come before us are demolitions. and the conversation and the negotiations with the project sponsors are relative to urban fabric. they're not relative to protecting the resource. and that's where our hands are

tied. you know, 450 o'farrell and the one on california each have different issues but they're demolitions. and the site at 3333 california was what was the problem and the new development didn't really protect or even adhere or encompass anything that was important or significant about the site. the building was a whole other conversation. 3333 -- or 450 o'farrell, it seemed to me that there was a simpler solution or evaluation if the lightwell had been placed over the historic resource. and that evaluation wasn't available to us. so understanding how those -- you know, the conversation around if we're going to keep a facade, why do we keep it? and why it's important, so it's not just some weird appendage to a housing development.

and so then that goes into the preservation alternatives. and, you know, our resolution 746 with good intent i think that the unintended consequence is now that we are seeing multiple alternatives to full preservation alternatives. and multiple alternatives. what is lacking is that the full preservation alternative doesn't fully evaluate, in my opinion, whether the proposed project program and objectives can be accomplished. and if they can't be accomplished, why? so if we had one alternative and we were evaluating that, we could have a much more robust conversation around that. but our commission saw this, you know, continual demolition and we wanted more information so that if we were going to be -- which is the next topic item -- if we're going to be retaining

building elements -- facades and that sort of thing -- we wanted to do it in a meaningful way. that's why we ended up doing part of the partial appendages. so maybe our assessment on whether the draft e.i.r. is adequate or not -- instead of a review and comment -- maybe we take a vote on it and we actually vote on whether our commission believes that it's adequate and why or why not. >> city attorney, did you want to weigh in on this? >> with all due respect, under the charter -- >> can't hear you. >> you cannot hear? >> can you hear me then? under the charter, explicitly the historic preservation commission has authority to review and comment upon the environmental documents. so i think that you would be exceeding the authority under the charter to take an affirmative vote. i think that you could perhaps

find ways to do more than what you're doing and do different processes. but to vote on the adequacy of a draft. e.i.r. is too much. okay? >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> thank you president hyland for saying what you did. it begs the question as to whether or not you need to start raising the issue as to whether or not your role is adequate to what's at stake. and i think that is a difficult one when it comes to the interpretation of the charter but that is one which i think that is pressing given that we all jointly agree that the tools that we have together aren't quite enough for us to responsibly -- or for each of us

and each group is trying to do. and i think that i would definitely join you to ask as to whether or not the charter restrictions, they empower us but they also restrict us a at t time with the basic condition of how we look at how things have changed. we are basically up against money as being the highest value in preservation and that is in historic preservation terms, not an objective that can be met. >> commissioner johns. >> thank you. if we cannot vote, that is we, the historic preservation commission, is not allowed to vote on the adequacy of the i.i.r., is there -- e.i.r., is there anything that prevents us from voting on what we believe to be the preferred alternative? that is the question for you.

>> thank you. the attorney. >> city attorney. i think that you can -- as a matter of practice right now when you express your opinion, we can reach consensus on a particular alternative as, in effect, you're quote/unquote voting. but you cannot understand your voting as an approval of the draft e.i.r. because that would be utterly premature. that's why ceqa has a process for comments and then the certification falls within the purview of the planning commission. >> i wouldn't have imagined for a moment that we were doing any such thing. [laughter]. >> commissioner perlman. >> thank you. i think that commissioner moore said how do we translate, you know, our dialogue to the planning commission. and i think that we do have the opportunity to just have a robust conversation and it's just the matter is how do we get that to you. you know, i have seen the

reports and they're a paragraph or two. and part of that is the staff interacting with us as well, because the staff interacts with us and interacts with your commission. and it's literally just sort of a technical conversation on how we translate our robust conversation. and i think that we often feel limitations and we're often told that we have limitations from the staff tells us, you know, that we can only talk about these things. and i think that commissioner black's comment that we could do a lot more is well taken. but i think that is really the question is, you know, do you get a report that is just verbatim of what we discussed? or there's a summary of each one of the commissioners, say, you know, i like this one for these reasons, and that's translated to you. but some way that it seems that it's just a technical question.

i don't think that we have it change the charter to get to a reasonable way of communicating. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner richards. >> so to your point and everybody's point, apparently, the most time-consuming for us would be to force us to watch your proceedings. so we can actually hear word-for-word and see the expressions and hear the public comment. and i sat through one on buchanan and some of them are not short so it does have workload. and maybe i would do that as pay matter of principle in the future. and another one is to come and to do a presentation on us these ones. it doesn't seem like there's a lot of them, so i don't know that it's a huge amount of work. but there's you can't vote and i'd like to have a majority opinion and the minority opinion. and the majority thinks like the supreme court does. and then you have dissenters. i'm the minority but i still have this issue. that would work too. >> commissioner johns are you still on? >> i don't have a monitor.

[laughter] my colleague here, thank you. i want to get to very practical recommendations that both of our commissions do a better job of organizing ourselves so that we, for instance, us, the historic preservation commission, does a better job of calling, you know, we're not going to call a vote to approve anything, but we're going to reach consensus and we could work with our president and vice president to organize ourselves better, particularly with we get to talking about what is our preferred alternative. or i think we could do a better job on that. and i would ask the planning commission to organize their agenda. and that i think that we would try to figure out how to present to you. i thank you to commissioner hillis for going to the government website and listening

to the, for instance, the conversation on 3333 california. and, you know, i often do that on other types of projects and things that i'm following. which is often a good way to hear the debate and to get the different viewpoints. but many of you don't necessarily have time for that. so if there's a way for us to present more of the views, even if -- hopefully we have reached some concensus and a preferred alternative. or, again, my whole goal is to establish more of an invocation of an attitude and a predisposition in the whole development community towards a full consideration of preservation amidst the multiple goals that we all have to deal with in planning for the city. so that's what i would ask. >> thank you, commissioner wolfram. >> i have a question for staff relative to the issue of timeliness of the -- of when we present our material. we're getting the draft e.i.r., often it's a week before, and the staff has to write the letter and then we'd ask more

staff to potentially write more letters. but is there a way that we could -- the hearing could come earlier? i'm just curious about the e.i.r. process. >> okay. so there's two hearings, right? because there's the h.p.c. hearing on the alternative. i think that could definitely happen earlier and i think that was actually the goal of changing that. is that instead of having a fully developed alternative coming to you under the a.r.c., we would do that more as a scoping activity. and then we do provide notes on that. and then we can figure out potentially how that would get to planning commission. so we'll look at the process on that. and come up with how is it best to get that information to the planning commission and when it should go to them. and the other question -- so that i think that we're sort of addressing some of these is that we'll provide, obviously, more detail in that information. and it will also be the full h.p.c. that will comment on the alternatives and they'll come

earlier in the e.i.r. process. on the full review on the e.i.r., that's more challenging because it happens during the public comment period. so what we have to do is to schedule the draft e.i.r. review and comment on the h.p.c. and the planning commission and then staff has to turn around a letter on your review of the e.i.r. and then get it to the planning commission. so i we can work on the schedulg of that and we'll look at that as a process to get that essentially -- maybe more time in between that so that we can get it to you earlier and that the staff has time to do that, to do a more detailed letter, but that's that window. >> the planning commission has always has two hearings, right? the draft e.i.r. and then the final certification. so there's more of a window -- we're providing our comments before they have their comment on the draft. but we never provide comments before they do the final certification. so i'm wondering if that gives us more flexibility.

>> i'm saying what we're trying to do right now is to get your comments on the draft e.i.r. also given to planning commission at the time they hear the public comment. >> the draft. right. >> would it be beneficial to have it come back to the h.p.c. prior to your hearing on the certification, the final e.i.r.? is that too late? i guess too late to change anything. >> because that's the point at which you're making a decision, right? you're not making any decisions when you see the draft, you're just taking public comment. >> okay. and miss gibson looks like she wants to weigh in on this. >> i just wanted to add that we have actually decided that it would be beneficial to produce a transcript of the h.p.c. hearing to assist our staff and developing the letter that reflects the h.p.c.'s comments. and perhaps it would be helpful that we provide that transcript to the planning commission to enable the commissioners to more

readily to review the comments and not have to necessarily watch the hearing itself. so we'll explore how we could do that and getting the -- you know, the timing of that as allison indicates is tight. but we'll review that. and we'll get back to you. >> okay. thank you. oh, i'm sorry. did you want to weigh in? >> i wanted to kind of summarize what my concerns have been and that is that there are at least three projects that have been before us recently in the pipeline of this entitlement process where it was very clear in my opinion that more of the preservation could have been incorporated into the project without losing the full development or the full, you know, without compromising the project's goals. and that's why, you know, i kind

of have been raising the flag and saying, hey, you know, if we just densified the site over here, we could open up the site in front of the building and it would be a much better project. and those options aren't before us to comment on. and so we have been asking why. and then how can we help you in guiding those projects in a better way? >> can you be specific about what projects you're talking about? >> well, the one that we talked about denseification -- >> 333 california, there's an opportunity to dense few the 65 feet all along california and not build in front of the resource. which is the site that made the resource -- and resource is more than just the building. but by leaving the site open in front of the building and dense flying another portion of the site, we could achieve the program and yet keep what's important about the site. even though what happens to the

building may be a demolition. >> and 450 o'farrell. you know, the location of the lightwell -- the project in and of itself required some zoning changes or approvals, you know, what do they call it -- but, you know, the zoning administrator had to make a determination of some other parts of the site. so the lightwell could have been, you know, in a conceptual massing place the over the actual resource and the development could have happened around it. but that option wasn't before us. >> hold on. through the chair, please. commissioner richards, did you want to say something? thank you. >> you struck a chord with me with what you just said. when the project alternatives are looked at and the project itself is proposed, what i'd love to see on this sheet and in addition to the profit margin, if we can, is the number of variances and things that were we to grant them to achieve

these things. so, you know, because -- that ends up coming back to us and the city administrator does his thing and we do our thing, i'd love to see that on here. because we don't know that until the final project is picked. how many exposure and how many exceptions so i think that it's a great, great point. >> the pertruro power station is a very good example of what commissioner hyland just said. there's five total historic resources but three specific ones that the developer just wanted to get rid of. and with some fairly simple -- you know, they were going up higher -- you know, they were getting all sorts of allowing the develop pent, so reorganizing it in a certain way would have allowed the room to preserve that whole central area. and we discussed that as, you know, as a viable alternative but we didn't see it. you know, i mean, that's what we talked about at the a.r.c. and it comefer came back to us as a

completed thing because we never see it again after it goes past the draft. so there's a way that we need to talk about that with you so that you know that is something that we thought that was really -- i mean, that was very significant. because those buildings are going to get bulldozed or death squadded if we don't pay attention to that. >> commissioner hillis. >> i just wanted to comment. i don't think that there's anything procluding you have having a hearing on a specific project post the e.i.r. so you all -- if you think that it is valuable to us, you should do that. i don't think that there's anything -- you can talk to the city attorney and others about it, but i also want to point out that your role is to preserve a resource, right? and i think to some extent and you take this into consideration also is to build more housing and to provide more affordable housing. and sometimes those go against each other. i mean, in -- i think that happened on 450 o'farrell, even if something could have happened where you preserved that facade,

i don't know if you were really preserving that building which was a church. i mean, you might have preserved the facade and ultimately -- at least it was my opinion -- it was better without that facade. sure, if you kept the whole building and you were able to put housing above it and kept that but none of those alternatives were eventually going to do that. so i was comfortable with that decision. but i think that, you know, you think that the projects are heading down the wrong path and there's a viable alternative that gets the program, getting the affordable housing and gets the housing, you know, -- you know, and again on 333 california, you might be able to get the program elsewhere, we'll see as that goes through the process whether that is the case or not. but i would suggest that you do that. >> okay. commissioner richards was on the board. and then commissioner hyland.

>> what is interesting is that there seems to be a disconnect between your good ideas and the scoping process. so i would love to have your alternative like you said on 333 california as one of the alternatives, literally listed in the e.i.r., you know, with all of the different aspects of it and it's hard hearing it way after the fact, like, we hear a concept but we can't really tell the number of square feet and the number of units and so that's what i think -- and we'd love to see the schematic too like you have up here. so maybe you can connection earlier in the scoping process and put your heads together and go, hey, this is -- h.p.c. preferred alternative and have it to be listed. >> commissioner hyland. >> your point is well taken, commissioner hillis. and the issue for us is that it's too late in the process. almost when we're -- even when it gets before the a.r.c. it's almost too late in the process. so how do we get -- how do we influence the development of the

alternatives and those things that are studied in the e.i.r. so that these ideas can get incorporated? if it's at the end of the process then we become obstructionists. >> yes, commissioner hillis. >> the process isn't over until, you know, the planning and then ultimately to the board of supervisors on many projects. i wouldn't be too concerned that it's later in the process. i think that we get bogged down in the -- the e.i.r. alternatives are meant to give, you know, broad kind of levels of variance that could happen in a project. and there's an alternative at 333 california and there's other alternatives. we don't need every alternative that ultimately may be under consideration to be in the e.i.r. it's just the impacts have to be able to fit within that. so oftentimes we take projects and we marry two alternatives or alternately through that process, alternatives get married and something comes out

of the project. that is not necessarily a specific alternative in the e.i.r. so i wouldn't get entirely bogged down in that. and that's part of the issue that you're having is that you opine on this early during the alternative process and things happen with the project. and it gets community input in, and further review by staff and it goes down a process in changes. and maybe to not one of the alternatives, but some in between. and i think that, again, that's the time -- if you feel compelled -- to make comments. >> okay, commissioner richards and i will just call to your attention that it's almost noon and we still have not tackled number two on the agenda. >> so one of the scoping document comes out with the project sponsors, you know, the desired outcomes or objectives can't the a.r.c. meet and actually go over what they are and say, here's what we think, staff, what the preferred alternatives should be? to commissioner hillis we have the permutations of this and that and i would rather to see

an h.p.c. alternative or a partial rather than five different variations. >> i'm curious what miss gibson feels? >> the question about timing and whether earlier in the process there can be input by the h.p.c. that then gets transmitted to the planning commission. i understand that is the desire here. as allison indicated we do feel that it would be possible to have the first hearing before the h.p.c. rather than the a.r.c. and to have that earlier in the process before there is a lot of investment and development of alternatives. so that then there is a greater, you know, sense of flexibility to influence early in the process. that was our intention before, but we do hear that, you know, we could be doing it better and differently. so we're going to modify the process going forward. >> thank you. commissioner perlman. >> given the timeframe i'm wondering if we can make this a

quarterly joint commission, you know, to do something on a regular basis. because this is a great conversation. clearly, we're not going to have time to get to part two if we have to end. so it's an investment of two hours quarterly and then we can have specific topics and maybe just one topic each time that we meet or something like that. >> perhaps officers could meet -- just quarterly meeting of everyone is a lot. and we also have joint meetings with rec and park and health and -- >> (indiscernible). >> yeah, so maybe we could talk, you know, about, you know, officers meetings. and then perhaps set a specific meeting where we look at what the staff has done and to see if there's any process improvements that have actually led to the goals that we intended. >> we don't have a hard stop. we just want to be respectful of

the planning commissioners' day. >> we're supposed to have our regular meeting at 1:00. okay. commissioner wolfram. >> i would caution our commission a little bit that i think that our goals should not be trying to find the perfect alternative. remember, that there's a sponsor there, they have a project, and they're trying to get their project build anbuilt and they'o get the alternative built. we can spend time on having good alternatives but our role should be conveying to the planning commission why we think that the resource should be saved. not to get too obsessed with all of these alternatives. because the sponsors do not want their alternatives built. that's not their goal. and it's a procedural matter and i think that as much as we can afford the commission about the historic resource and its importance and they can weigh that in to the discussions of the alternatives but -- i mean, i think that commissioner moore said that there's a sponsor there and they've got financial

objectives and the reason they want to demolish the building is because it most likely does not meet their financial objectives. not that they are anti-preservation but that it's want meeting their project. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to throw out an idea if we are not able to meet more than once or twice a year that there's a possibility for forming a sub-committee on joint topics of interest. that is very possible, commissioner wolfram and myself, for a number of years of helping small business and working with the small business commission on a schedule. and we have that ability too if there are selected people who in their own group get selected to be on a sub-committee, that would be one other alternative. >> commissioner johns? oh, it's you. >> as a segue to commissioner moore's point about even having special times when we have a discussion and conversation busy topics of special interest, i

want to acknowledge that what i think is significant about this conversation is the evolution of the former landmarks advisory board into the historic preservation commission as a charter is today. and the very representation of the interests and the expertise and the skills of the people on the commission today reflect quite a much broader view of historic preservation, living heritage, thank you very much, as well as beyond the building. we all have our skills and thinking that has expanded to consider not just the cornice, per se, but beyond the building, the people, the landscape, the natural landscape and the cultural landscapes and the district, what is all around us to create a holistic view. so these conversations bring all of this into play today. >> thank you. commissioner richards.

>> a last suggestion, maybe we do a default once a year and if there's nothing to talk about the officers cancel but at least we kind of put a placemarker in. >> good idea. >> sounds good. >> commissioners if there's nothing further on item one we can move on to item two. and as commission president hyland stated there's no hard stop for this hearing but we do need to be cognizant of the next meeting. item 2, retain elements policy. >> good after, commissioner, tim frey, department staff. i'll be presenting along with my small, who manages our design team in the planning department. i can handle this hover you see beneficial -- however you see beneficial and i'll stop after a slide or two to see if there's any questions. if i could go ahead and get the overhead sfgov-tv. thank you. commissioners, this is a topic

much debated at the historic preservation commission and i will give you a short bit of background. but, first, i wanted to recognize justin grving in the audience because he was instrumental in doing tremendous outreach to the h.p.c. and for the h.p.c., to fully understand facade retention and it's a much debated and maligned topic within the design circles but specifically the historic preservation. we think that after many rounds with the historic preservation commission and meeting with san francisco architectural heritage that we have finally reached a point where we have a draft document that these commissions can review and if there is interest in moving this forward that we can now move to stakeholder outreach and getting more feedback from the public to implement the documents.

so, again, there was a lot of discussion around -- at the commission, at the historic preservation commission, about the role of historic fabric. are we talking about specifically historic buildings? are we talking about historic neighborhoods? or are we really talking about the character of neighborhoods no matter what they're made up of in demonstrating a particular identity as many commissioners have mentioned with the distinct identity of san francisco. and so just to reiterate, you know, the commission originally brought up this topic in 2015 when the commission was deliberating on its preservations policy, knowing that a number of preservation alternatives included some kind of facade retention component. at that time the commission felt, you know, this really isn't a ceqa issue as much as it's a design issue that goes

beyond sort of our ceqa analysis. and we should be giving the public stronger direction on what would constitute a successful project or retaining certain elements of a property. so that discussion started sort of in earnest in december 2015 where justin presented a number of projects throughout the world that have incorporated some level of facade retention into a newer, larger development. at that time the commission felt that that was helpful but wanted to get a better sense of what was happening locally. so we pulled a number of projects that have happened in san francisco -- occurred in san francisco that have been built over the last 25, 30 years. we presented the original drawings. we talked about what went right, what went wrong and at that time the commission felt, okay, let's start drafting a policy around this notion but at that point it started to become more like a design guideline document. so we abandoned the policy

approach and really started working on graphics. and at that time the commission, the historic preservation commission, felt that the document was going in the right direction and so we have spent the better part of a year working on graphics, but also talking to san francisco heritage to make sure that we were striking the right tone. and that this was -- the focus really was the buildings that the department and you as commissioners are debating on a regular basis. and what we found -- or tried to implement were a number of recommendations. here's some examples of the document in front of you and there are copies for the public here as well. so two major items that we focused on for the new document are, one, it's just too hard to squeeze this into a design direction for historic

resources. it's too polarizing. and it really is a case-by-case basis is what we're coming up with. and we might talk more in detail about what that means. so we decided at the urging of some of the commissioners -- i will say not the entire historic preservation commission saw eye-to-high on this, but after talking to heritage we thought that it was safe to go ahead and put in a direction there that says "this guideline document does not apply to historic properties." whether they're listed or eligible. and this comes slightly out of your adoption of the urban design guidelines document now. so this will be a companion document to the u.b.g.s and as we know that the u.d.g.s where they don't apply, the historic guidelines will have -- we'll build those to have more direction around this concept. we're just not there yet because we're still in the public information gathering phase of

the h.d.g.s. so i can talk more about that later. and then the last thing is really to clarify what is the public benefit of retaining a portion of an existing building into a larger development. and to do that we've developed a set of -- not necessarily criteria but questions that a developer may articulate or a project sponsor may articulate to all of us, including the public, about why they're approaching a project a certain way. and so that at least allows us to have a discussion about really on balance is this the right approach. and that includes, you know, is the replacement building actually a better building and we should be projecting this notion of retaining elements. and there has also been discussion, if they don't apply to historic resources and these are only to be applied to where the u.d.g.s are relevant, what type of buildings will be affected. here's an example of some buildings within centrals