commissioner johnck >> i support in resolution of finding. i think i don't whether i brought this but i support of the resolution. send it to the ship. i want to comment the environmental history of that industrial acidity is very important, too, and that's why as a historical hill it's a fascinating project >> it's been spread out all over the site. >> i make a motion to adapt the draft motion in your package. >> i second it. >> then on the motion to adapt the support of the names to the california office of preservation for the national registration. >> commissioner johnck. sxhorn. commissioner matsuda. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on your final agendized item the certified local government annual report, review and comment >> good afternoon, commissioners tim fry department staff. i'm here to present just a few highlights from the c l g annual report in your packet. i'm sure you're aware of this is a requirement for the depart

commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and a president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes commissioner hyland is so recused. >> good afternoon, commissioners department staff. the project before you is a nomination of the national historic register it was perpetrate for the port of san francisco. in its capacity as a certified local government the city and county of san francisco is give the authority to comment on the commission and it will be forwarded to the commission of the office of historic presently. it's a maritime district 10 non-contributing resources this includes the cranes and segments & of the rails and this is for the criteria a and criteria c. under criteria a that the nationally significant for the steel house shipbuilding in the united states and it's shipbuilding and it's wartime vessels. under the criteria c it's local significant and the physical record of the trend and architecture. it began in 1884 about the construction of the shipyard and that ends at the close o

just another suggestion, johnck mentioned policy sites. so you might want to consider adding policy site to 1.13. >> thank you. commissioner hyland. >> i think in general we're moving in the right direction. i would like to see some of the language be much stronger. and it may be because we haven't lived with this long enough. this is all-new language and as we live with it a little bit longer, we'll be able to make sure what we need it to say, it will say. but in the other policies they're just much more direct and straight to the point so in the community he will me [speaker not understood]. please make sure resource he are protected. please don't say that yet. in the commerce industry element, policy 6.8, it says preserve historically and/or architecturally important buildings or groups of buildings in the neighborhood district. it's a proactive, specific strong language. so, what i would propose under policy 1.12, initially i said preserve and strikeout recognize the value. but i think this is a more general acknowledgment. so, i'm oka

commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and a president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes commissioner hyland is so recused. >> good afternoon, commissioners department staff. the project before you is a nomition of the national historic register it was perpetrate for the port of san francisco. in its capacity as a certified local government the city and county of san francisco is give the authority to comment on the commission and it will be forwarded to the commission of the office of historic presently. it's a maritime district 10 non-contributing resources this includes the cranes and segments & of the rails and

commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and president hasz. so moved, commissioners, that passes unanimously 7 to zero and palace you under commissioners comments and questions >> i want to see on a future meeting for the agenda. >> we can accept anything on the agenda. >> it's the last item in the group that we put on the agenda for future hearing a discussion will state tax credits the district tax credits and what we can do to help support speak maybe get someone from the commission to talk about that. >> commissioner johns. every year the san francisco museum and historical society how old a history expo usually we get 30 hundred or more people to come and see an assembly of delays that you put on and standoff by the various historical organizations in san francisco. this year, the mr. fry as homeland that the planning department and the historic preservation commission will be represent represented; is that correct? >> i'm looking at to that booth and i highly recommend everyone attend. march the f

commissioner johnck pr commissioner matsuda and commissioner pearlman. commissioners first on your calendar t is general public comment. at this point the public may address the public with respect to jound agenda items your opportunity when be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes. i have one speaker card >> richard rothman, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm richard rothman i'm back here again talking about the building at the zoo. they opened the children's playground there so the building is now assessable and hopeful that that will be opened up and the next thing the recreation and parks department put in a grant for the historic preservation commission for the rec and park and the zoo society to do a study to see how much it would cost could renovate the building and i would hope this commission would ask the staff to send a letter of support to the historic preservation commission fund committee in support of this application. and i still building this build

commissioner johnck >> well, i basically agree with you commissioner johns. i don't think this ordinance i would have been interested to consider this but it's not necessary for this purpose to hear it today. and i don't disagree that the fountain is a historic resource and the developers have treated it appropriately in the new design. we need to think about the fountain as a historic resource. it's important that commissioner matsuda recommended that due care and attention be given to the points about the family being involved and that kind of thing. i will bring up the madam chair you didn't mention the madam chair. i think it's important whether to move that i don't know from an architecture point of view where it should be and if the madam chair is the end all of the fountain but i think it's very important for the public to be aware of the value of that resource >> commissioner pearlman before i call on you i will say that the comment on the madam chair to add a brazil madam chair for the core sense of the fountain. >> in response defined the historic r

commissioner johnck. >> okay. well being new to the commission i have a comment and i realize i could do more work looking at the website but you've presented a to and comprehensive discussion on the budget. y where can we be more helpful to you. there's a lot of numbers in here and a lot of data and i'm impressed with what you're developing. now and then how can we be helpful without getting nitpick i didn't and the second thing i'm interested it appears a major trend to reduce general fund support and go to fees over the years i've been looking the state of california and other states well, we're is a service agency to the city. i'd be interested or if you could direct me to an appropriate document how do you come up with the fees. i assume a portion of them are pegged to the staff person that's attached to the project perhaps than a percentage of the total project costs in addition. i'd be curious how that is derived >> thank you commissioner on the first question the way to be helpful is to look at the propert

commissioner johnck and commissioner sugaya.ioners first on your agenda is the consideration for items case one at assessor dwelling units in the castro is to be continued until mark 16 for the cases at the 395, 26 avenue for continuance april 24th and that's all i have for continuance and there are no speaker cards >> any comments on the items proposed for continuance? >> good afternoon. commissioner steve williams on behalf of the surrounding neighbors at the 26th promise. the clients asked me to come down and as you recall we were here on >> steve i'm e i'm sorry to interrupt you this is only matters of continuous. this is what i'm here for we ask inform a couple of weeks inform a community meeting this new continuance it this 2 1/2 extra most we were not visited in any way i found out friday first time there was a continuance in the work and the dated had already been selected so we wanted to get that out under. they opposed the continuance last time and causing issues with their project so this is coming from the project sp

. >> commissioner johnck? >> here. >> commissioner malt sued a? >> here. >> and commissioner pearlman? >> here. >> at this time the public at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. when the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the commission must be exercised during the public comment portion of the calendar. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. ~ i have no speaker cards. >> does anyone in the public wish to speak on any item not on our agenda? seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> department matters, item 1, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissio

. >> commissioner johnck. >> along those same lines, we can decide if we want to discuss more about the letter now or -- i mean today, but i'll just bring up my point about the letter. and i think we could be saying something -- i agree with commissioner hyland, you know, about the backlog. but i was looking at item number 2 saying that we are eager to work more closely with the planning commission and, you know, department projects such as community planning initiatives. well, we've been talking about legislation. we kind of work more closely on legislation that it not just involves historic components. planning initiatives and legislation that affect the historic resources he. i mean, that's the proper term. not just components, i think, yeah. so, and then i think we should add something about we asked and agreed to a position that addresses he landmark -- >> we'd have to add that one item. >> number 4. those are my suggestions for amendments to number 2. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioners, anything else? okay, so, we'll take public comment. any member of the public wish to com

commissioner sugaya and commissioner chair wu it passes 3 to 2 with commissioner johnck and commissioner moore voting against. that places you under our discretionary review calendar we'll move to items a and b. for 45, 46, 19 street for discretionary review and the zoning administrator will talk about the variance. i want to make everyone aware because of our current rule changes and this is sort of a unique situation with 7 dr requesters we've been discussing with the dr requesters that their time limit is 17 minutes total and the project sponsor will have 10 minutes and each side will have a 10 minute rebuttal. good afternoon, commissioners michael with the planning staff. this is for the project on the eureka neighborhood between douglas street. a few house keeping issues. on page 2 of the report that's a reference to the 45 hundred block of u correcting reck street, however, it's 19th street. no petition was submit for or against this project and the neighborhood group e bp a that was opted to the project should be the eureka valley association. and one of the dr requesters nancy re

. >> commissioner johnck? >> yes. >> commissioner malt sued a? >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman? >> yes. >> commissioner wolfram? >> yes. >> and commissioner [speaker not understood]? >> yes. [speaker not understood] has comment. >> i should have mentioned this at the beginning, but march 5th i'm not going to be here. the reason i brought it up is there an arc potentially scheduled for that? >> no, not at this moment. >> terrific. nothing else, we will -- excuse me. >> i should have brought this up, too. i was looking at our advance calendar and it looks a little slim. so, i was wondering if we could start to introduce the discussion of the historic element and talk more about that as well as the golden gate park master plan, go back to that and -- >> nomination. >> right. >> as well as talking about the application of the secretary of interior standards? >> right, that's -- >> which we haven't talked about. >> [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood] yeah, interpretation. that's where the head count for the legislative action is going to take -- [laughter] >> you're

commissioner johnck >> well, i have some comments by are we having any public comment? >> yes. we are. >> i'll wait. >> commissioner hyland. >> as far as cultural landscapes is that more appropriate here? >> i think that's a great question for the call of the commission to have with the department it's metrological to have some policy preservation policies here if you think we should expand those would he do love to hear our feedback and with the prejudice element that's preservation landscape. >> correct. >> i think it's important to remember that the idea was that the full range of activities be addressed in the preservation element. we're talking about the open space element so whatever policies you feel are important to incorporate i think it's important to incorporate here but there's a whole range of activity you've discussed >> we'll see that on the next agenda so we'll have time to get a robust statement in there. >> it's not? >> no, because they're trying to get it qualified and sitting here today, we don't have enough input from the stakeholders it's now coming to us

. >> commissioner johnck. >> sure i'm interested in the one point at the moment about the architecture review committee. and not all projects come back for a second i mean, you made some comments there were changes made. i guess is it typical of or not typical to go back or - >> most projects do not come back. >> do not come back so it's unusual. >> so i want to direct your comments about the changes. >> commissioner pearlman do you want to comment. >> sure i've got a lot to say. this is incredibly challenging problem. i've spent a lot of time walking that district within the last two weeks and pay checks walked up and down the streets and got a feel for the buildings in this area. i want to commend the partners. i think that the changes to the facade and the a number of our comments relative