approach to incentivizing these cultural resources city wide and we're going to work with the hpc on this proposal. they would like to bring the proposal to the planning commission and for your comments and forward to the board of supervisors and that concludes my presentation unless you have questions. >> could you help clarify for me and the bank building and beautiful location. i am happy to see movement there. are you saying that the commission asked them to replace the electronic original sign on the building or the one on the adjacent property? >> yes the current neon sign on the property was constructed outside of the period of significance meaning after 1935. it's believed that underneath that sign the stone has the name and i believe the hi bernia savings and loan bank. the commission recognized that sign has been there for quite some time and felt either one or the other should be restored but since we don't know what the condition of the original sign is behind there that the project sponsor should at least explore the opportunity to restore one or the other. >> all right.

for example, the hpc can continue to consider a landmarking or similar kinds of process, but no physical change can be made to the property. and, of course, the c-e-q-a determination is overturned, those decisions will be invalidated, but nothing irreversible will have happened. there are also improvements to noticing in the legislation and there are also changes around the board's rules. for example, requiring that there will always be a court reporter when the board holds c-e-q-a hearing. now it's optional. it's inconsistent. it gives the board more flexibility to adopt our own procedural rules around c-e-q-a. and then finally, the environmental review officer of the planning department will be able to make determinations around what is a historic resource that would require that noticing occur. and that will be a topic of discussion today as well. now, i know that this is complicated legislation and it's an important subject, but everyone's view on the matter is. and, so, we have been receiving significant amount of feedback. we have had various meetings so far with architectural heri

the hpc has already had hearings, on november 11th and 21st. this is your first hearing. we've been told from the chair of the land use committee hearing that they are not going to schedule it for the -- there's only two remaining land use committee hearings this year. it will not be heard in december. that does mean that even though there's no official hold that this body has on the board preventing them from hearing t we are told they will not hear it until the new year. certainly you can plan for hearings through december and that would be before what we've been told board action would be. >> well, let me think about it. go ahead. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. so, commissioner sugaya, would you be interested in another hearing possibly? [laughter] >> let me put forth -- >> really. >> let me put forth what my idea would be and let's see if it has support. and parenthetically, there are some additions of things in this. i i understand the negative declarations now would have to be appealed to us first, which was not necessarily the case. so, there's more proces

the hpc program looks not only for significance but also underrepresented property types. oral history interviews with several patrons with long associations with the twin peaks were conducted by planning staff. this forms the basis for the research and documentation of the history and importance of the resource. both on the september 19th twebt 12 and the october 17th recommendation hearings, the historic preservation commission voted unanimously for historic preservation, both the exterior and the interior of the bar based on its significance. the bar first opened in 1975. the bar was opened in 1972 by two lesbians as a fern bar. the twin peaks tavern, housed in an intact 20th century building, the bar retains its expansive windows and other character-defining windows and continues to serve the lgbt community. only two other (inaudible) have been designated based for their association with lgbt history. planning staff has met with both the owners of the building and the owners of the business and reviewed the process for permanent review and explained the benefits and re

the staff planner, but there is one portion of that correspondence -- copy of a letter sent to the hpc from spur which is eir related component. in their letter spur specifically asked for supplemental eir to be under taken and let just quote from that letter because it does pertain to western soma. this is from spur. "we believe that a supplemental eir for the eastern neighborhoods and the western soma must be completed prior to the survey findings in order to organize the findings on the development assumptions in those areas" so that's just the 1eir related component to what we're speaking about later, so this is the appropriate time. thank you. >> is there any additional general public comment? okay. >> public comment portion is closed. >> thank you commissioner. and that will place us under the regular calendar, item nine case amendments to the planning code amending section 166 to allow additional car share parking spaces. >> good afternoon president fong and members of the commission. mr. power is here. >> i am here for supervisor scott wiener and unfortunately he couldn't make

important to the hpc in particular, the proposed procedures would change nothing about how historic resources are evaluated under see qualitiv so, there is some confusion as you heard about that. there would be -- the only change relative to historic resources would be a small change to the special noticing that happens to those who are on our preservation mailing list. and this notice for historic resources was amended in the recent version just last week so it would address the concern and provide notice for any city adopted service. so, that's kind of the big overview. now our senior environmental planner sarah jones is going to go through the memo that we handed out today. and there copies on the table for the public. if anyone needs an extra one, they can see us. >> could i ask a quick question to staff? there's references i'm reading in here, and you just mentioned there had been amendments made to the legislation that we have had before us, but we have not received. is that correct? >> that is correct. i would go run copies right now. i'm sorry for that. >> that's all right. we don't n

but i think most of the points are being discussed at the hpc. and i don't have those minutes yet. so, but i would express some concern about that area of c-e-q-a. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm not sure if the legislative aide of supervisor wiener is here, but it would probably be good for his support to listen to the proceedings and pick up some of the fine points. i think the public has been extremely eloquent, in many cases more than myself because we are quite informed people on legislative matters. and i think we should carefully listen to. >> commissioner antonini, you made a motion, a loose motion at that. is there a second? >> i'll try to capture it if i can. >> okay. commissioner wu will second. so, the motion, if i can try to capture it, is to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the board of supervisors with a strong request to engage -- >> no, no, no. >> let me restate it if i can, mr. ionin. we are asking the supervisor to engage the public for additional input and then create a third draft that takes into consideration their input as well as those comments of o

just determined to be eligible and you can go through a process of going through that hpc and if needed coming to the planning commission and, you know, it's essentially a trade-off keeping the building viable and maintained over time in exchange for more flexibility of land uses. the problem that we run into with western soma is that now that the survey is complete and has been now for a while, there is an extremely large number of buildings that would meet that threshold in we shall soma. and as you know, office use specifically under the current controls in western soma is extremely limited. that's being loosened a little bit under what's proposed. but if we useedth same threshold as eastern neighborhoods for that kind of flexibility, then there would be a significant amount of office space that would essentially be able to be permitted within the plan area. so there was a conscious decision made to raise the bar, essentially, as to what level of historic building would be able to take advantage of that kind much land use flexibility. and that was set at being article 10 landmark bui