thank you. >> chairman perlman. >> hi, everybody, jonathan perlman. what i would like to figure out and maybe have some forum to do is just what we were talking about with commissioner richards with conversations about design. i don't know if that's a workshop where we're not sitting in this kind of setting, where it's more informal and maybe it's, you know, the a.r.c. of the h.p.c. and two or three commissioners. some way to talk about design. because that's what seems to get missed. when the preservation alternatives come to us basically our job is to say are these adequate. and for the most part they're adequate. i mean, there's been one or two that we have asked the project sponsor to go back and review and/or change things. but that's not a lot of latitude to talk about the impact, you know, to the design of the area relative to the historic building. whether it's a complete demolition or not. and the one that was put up on the screen, the one that is at the old honda dealer at the corner of market and van ness is very complicated. and we have no

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 getti

[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 on

>> commissioner perlman? >> part of my question has already been asked.t relates to the same thing. it is the other end of what commissioner john said. to get from them, what they want to hear -- how they want to interact with us, the example was one where i got upset because they were making decisions based on their perception of a historic house, and they never came to staff, and they never came to us. and what the implication was of all that. are there places where the planning commission can anticipate things that they can bring to us so that then we could inform them for items coming before them? thank you. >> i had one last point for question. are those that have unavoidable impacts for historic resources, and the question is, how many projects have not come before us that had historic resources that were dealt with in a way that impacts were mitigated to less than significant, so i would like to know how many of those projects existed, and if there is a dozen of them were half a dozen of them, it is a simple quick list. my guess is it is very few.

and could tha understand that ia preservation, it's an urban design effort. >> commissioner perlman. >> thank you. i did want to comment related to what commissioner hillis said and commissioner johnson about we're doing a project on mission street where the prevailing facades are two and three stories. the zoning is the future state which allows us to go up to 65 feet on that particular -- on that block. so what we're doing is that the facade of this building is a c, and it's not historic but it looks very historic. it's a victorian period. it's not in great shape but it has all of the character defining features of what was built at the time. so we're choosing to retain that facade and we are setting back above the building and then going up to the 65 feet. so -- and what is odd, what will be odd until more is built out is that the massing will be much bigger than the street. because we're going to have a six-story building rather than the three-story buildings that are around it. but you do have to then, you know, we're going to do 10, 12 units of housing. so you do then have to l

commissioner perlman. >> thank you, i want to compliment justin greving and mya small and staff, because i do think that this has come quite a long way. i have been working as an architect in san francisco for almost 30 years now. there was a time in the 1990s when there were -- they were called guidelines but they were actually laws. like, you have to set back 15 feet. it doesn't matter what the building is, it doesn't matter that the structure line is at 14 feet, it didn't matter. so this has come a really long way into the sensitivity that, you know, every building is unique and every time, you know, a client comes to me with their latest acquisition, it's like, oh, crap what we'll do now because this is so different from the last one that we did. so i really appreciate that, you know, the direction that this has taken and like commissioner black mentioned that it's broad enough that it gives us a lot of opportunity as architects to work with our clients and to make good buildings which is often lost in the watered down version after it's been hammered by the staff and it gets to comm

this is a point made by the historian michael perlman. the policy was an administrative nightmare.n part from disregarding the fromll readiness of units which the individuals were discharge, the policy with announcement of a critical score required for discharge, the number of points you need to be discharged, served as an incentive in the wrong direction for the men in the pacific and the 3 million soldiers scheduled for redeployment. in other words, looking at that card, you can tell when you got the requisite number of points, you could be going home. partial demobilization commenced day, but so did redeployment. yes, i will. the army and air force is planned to redeploy 3 million soldiers and airmen from europe to the pacific. combat forces would go by way of the u.s., where they would spend 30 days on leave, and then they would regroup, pick up replacements, and put in eight weeks training before heading to the second stage of the invasion of japan. george marshall was not given the hyperbole -- given to hyperbole, but he called redeployment "the greatest administrative and lo

it's lawrence perlman, who was a researcher on the study. >> what were the findings of the study?e were looking for differences in parenting. we wanted to understand parenting practices and how it would affect development. the triplets were placed in families where there was an older adopted child that had been placed by louise wise. that was part of the design. >> how do you feel watching that? >> like a elaborate. it -- it only just makes it that -- it just only -- it just makes it -- >> that much worse. >> duplicitous. they're not just studying the kids but they're studying the parents. >> so they did, in fact, know the parenting style of each parent. so this was not, you know -- obviously was far from a random selection. >> they knew exactly who they had chosen to place each one of us with when they called the gallands and the kellmans and the shafrans. >> in terms of how they parented their children, the three families were quite, quite different. david's father stood out. there was nobody in the world like his son. he was so proud of him. whatever he did was wonderful. bobby