you raised a question of whether we can, based on conditions about whether this observation wheel will be around for four years or around for a year or around for two years, i think that is something that is within our purview. i think it is something that has an impact on a historic resource or we found that in two years or four years, it would have an impact on a historic redivorce, i think we can entertain a more severe motion, whether that be one year or two years or three years. and the issue that commissioner so raised about having a status report like within what -- the middle part, if this commission should agree to a four-year extension of having the department of rec and park come back with -- within 18 months

to determine if all of the issues raised have been resolved i think is also within our purview. and then, i also heard one other thing about deconstruction. and also, if you want to comment on the comment of whether the wheel stays on in a

place that is not affecting a historic resource. so miss taylor, if you can please start some comments for us? >> sure. commissioner foley? >> michelle? >> i'm happy to answer any questions the commissioners have. i also would like to invite victoria huang for any questions there may be, but it is my understanding that it is your purview to limit the time of the wheel if it is deemed appropriate for a shorter time for any effects on the

landmark. under the secretary of the interior standards if you find that it's better for the landmark to be less than four years, then that is within your purview. were there any other questions for me? >> maybe could you comment on the timeline if -- if this commission decides to vote for that certificate of appropriateness as it stands right now further re observation, what's the timeline at the end of that timeline would be? is it the understanding that the wheel would be stop operating by the first of march and it would be totally gone by

the end of march? do you have any -- >> right. i will defer to rec park on the deconstruction period, but i do want to note that in the presentation we noted that the wheel is temporary, and the site will be restored using in-kind materials by the end of march 2025, but if they need to take apart the wheel prior to march 2025, to meet that deadline of end of march 2025, there is some flexibility. however, their request to operate the wheel to march 1, 2025. i think it is important to have a clear end date so that we

know when the site will be fully restored. >> so, miss taylor, do you think that we need to further clarify? >> i believe it's clear that the site will be fully restored using similar materials by the end of march 2025, but if the board requires further clarification, we can certainly write that in. >> did any commissioners wish to suggest something in? >> this is victoria huang, deputy city attorney. if you have any questions, i'm happy to address them. >> so i think commissioner foley has a question on whether the department of rec and park

should entertain a solution of whether [inaudible] miss ketchum, if you want to make any comments to that? >> of course. we can certainly look at relocating the wheel permanently. that would take -- for a permanent location, a significant amount of time for those approvals? but, you know, for this purpose of this meeting, we are asking to approve our current location and application, but we can absolutely look at it, and we believe that one month is time to adequately deconstruct the wheel, but we will absolutely make sure that it's out at the end of its term, and that it's

fully deconstructed, and we have no issue with that request. >> thank you. are there any other questions for miss ketchum or the department of rec and park? commissioner foley, did you have any other questions that you wanted to ask? >> not specifically to miss ketchum. >> okay. >> i did want to respond to you, commissioner matsuda, about the temporariness. i think commissioner johns addressed that question fairly clearly in that, you know, it is a big question of, you know, i brought up the term creeping permanence. i believe that it is impossible for us to evaluate, if one year is okay, is 18 months okay, is two years okay? it's impossible for us to pick

a time frame per the secretary of interior standards to determine a different time. this is like an e.i.r. in that when the project sponsor presents a project, that's what they want, and that's what they're asking for, and, you know, i don't know -- i don't think there's any sort of legal way that we can make a judgment as to is one day more enough or too much? so i kind of agree with commissioner johns that three years does not -- the number of years that they're asking for does not change the impact of

the wheel on the historic district or landmark, which i think the staff has properly evaluated, so i think that's sort of a challenge. i also just wanted to say that what i recall from the c of a, the first c of a a year ago was there was a description of the restoration of the [inaudible], the methods and means with which they would do that, because i seem to remember there's a big concrete chunk that's underground, you know, that will disappear under the ground, and the soils will be replaced. all of that was well detailed in the c of a from january of 2020, so i don't see any issue with that. it seems like they absolutely could. it only took them a couple of days to put up the wheel, so

the requirement of restoring this site does not seem onerous to the project sponsor. thanks. >> commissioner johns? >> thank you. well, let's say we confirm this thing will be gone and the area turned back to what it was as close as possible by the last day of march, and so that's satisfied. i think that that buttons that up. >> thank you. commissioner nagaswaran. >> i think the reason that i had brought up the timeline for mobilization and demobilization was, you know, this whole extension is related to covid, so i was trying to understand whether, you know, the start of -- i don't know if that's

actually eight weeks or two months to get everything going. and then, the demobilization, whether it's four weeks or six weeks or eight weeks or two weeks, whether or not that at all informs whether we give a year or four years because that -- that in itself speaks to how economically viable it can be [inaudible] and i'm seeing this because of covid. i understand we're not thinking about timelines and that stuff, but if we do have purview in that, that's the only thing that i had thought about in terms of timeline. >> thank you.

miss [inaudible] did you want to clarify something with us? >> yes. if you are considering time frames that you could approve for four years and add a condition, which is something that happens a lot of times commission, for a look back for informational hearings back to the h.p.c. within a year. if that is something that would help in making your decision. >> clerk: commissioners, if i may, i just received a correspondence from supervisor peskin's aide, and he just wanted to communicate that supervisor peskin would be in support of a one-year extension. >> thank you, jonas, for letting us know that. commissioner foley, i'm sorry. i see that you wanted to make

comments. >> i made a mistake. sorry. i thought we were taking a break for a minute. >> great. so i think we're at a point where we're ready to entertain a motion. i think that miss [inaudible] just shared about us a certain condition, and i know i would be supportive of that, but i'm open to hearing a motion from commissioner johns. make that motion. >> so i move that we approve the request that was as in its form as of today, 3-3-21, with the change that there would be

eight weeks, and that after 18 months, we have an informational hearing which rec and park will report on the progress that they have made. >> okay. so sorry. commissioners, just to clarify for me, miss taylor, you would be making a motion to extend those -- the -- hold on. let me look at my notes -- both items the -- miss taylor knows -- both items for eight weeks. >> right. for the generator and the fencing, that rec park would have allowed eight weeks to provide us the materials for a review and approval. >> and then, for rec and park to come back within 18 months to provide us a status report.

>> yes. >> is that correct, commissioner johns? >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> so. >> may i make a suggestion? sorry. i just wanted to suggest that it's 12 months instead of 18 months. 18 months seems more reasonable -- just much longer out, so i'm asking if commissioner johns would consider revising his motion to 12 months rather than 18. >> yes, i would. i mention 18 months because that is what the commissioner so had mentioned, but the 12 months is just fine. >> so that friendly amendment of 12 months? >> yeah. >> second. second with the amendment. >> and just to reemphasize that

we will continue to look at this as a temporary. >> yes, absolutely. >> clerk: commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve the extension with the last motion provided from staff today, including that eight weeks be provided to rec park to provide materials for review regarding the generator and fencing and for a 12-month look back as an informational presentation from rec park. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and again, friendly reminder, we are adjourned in the honor of vincent marsh. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners, and, again, congratulations, commissioner nagaswaran, for your first meeting with us once again. >> thank you, commissioner pearlman, for your many years of service, and you will continue to stay in touch with us. >> and a perfect hearing to go out on. thank you, all. [applause] >> thank you, jonathan. >> and so the meeting is adjourned.

>> the meeting of the san francisco health commission. will you please call the roll. >> yes. [roll call]. >> i'll note for the record that she will join us she's having technical issues and i will note it on the minutes when she a arrives. >> president bernal: thank you, mark. we'll move on to the next item. approval of the minutes of the january 19th health committee meeting. commissioners upon