mr. frye or mr. sanchez, could you enlighten us? >> each of the members of the historic preservation commission are preservation professionals. we have two preservation architects. a preservation planner. an architectural historian and an historian who is considered an expert in american history in san francisco history. there is one at large seat and that is occupied by commissioner matsuda who has some preservation experience at the state level. >> thank you. >> was there any controversy about the person who holds a seat? >> are you referring to commissioner johns? >> yes. >> i'm not sure then what commissioner you're -- >> ok, yes, that's who. there is only one person. >> there was some controversy regarding commissioner johns, however the board of supervisors believes that he is adequately qualified to hold that position. >> thank you plrks frye. you confirm my own aassumptions around the qualifications of that commissioner. >> if i may make one more statement. >> please. >> it is ok for disagreements on the project. the impress

mr. frye said this building retains a high level of integrity. not only is that something that mark holbert doesn't agree with and chris buckley from alameda and oakland historic but neither did the planning commissioner at the hearing. i would like quickly to read a couple of things from what he said "is there really enough integrity left for this structure to continue to convey its historic significance? haven't the alterations severely reduced all or some of the seven aspebts of integrity"? why wasn't this carriage house compared with other carriage houses? the greater neighborhood? i don't believe the description of what would have been allowed -- of what would be allowed in this alternative would meet the reconstruction standards stating by the planning department. the planning department here is really in a minority in its opinions. chief frye and discussed earlier the likelihood that the preservation board priest to this one or the h.b.c. has ever turned down all the e.i.r. alternatives that were put before it. basically killing a project

director goldstein: mr. frye. >> to a landmark property in san francisco is a fairly typical process. before it the board of supervisors makes a decision to land market property, -- before the board of supervisors make a decision, they vet it through several committees. when this project was designated, the carriage house was always considered an important part of this individual landmark, and the carriage house exists today visually, while not maybe in its condition, but maybe the same way it was in 1988, so that gives the planning department and indication that the building still retains a high level of integrity from the time it was designated. now, to just back up a little bit and talk about the certificate of appropriateness. the c of a is necessary, and we are talking about the exterior walls and roof line of the carriage house and then the main residence at the front property line. projects that meet the secretary -- at me to the secretaries standards receive a certificate of appropriateness -- projects th