and the h.p.c. and how that information is communicated and understood by the planning commissioners. so -- >> the summary that is in -- you know, from the staff -- is limited relative to the conversation that we've actually had. >> right. >> so there's a lot less information that the planning commissioners are getting relative to why we think that these are appropriate or not appropriate, relative to the alternative. >> so we'll come back to this. commissioner moore? >> i would like to briefly mention with commissioner richards had previously mentioned, the largest dichotomy is understand the developer objectives is that the two values by which both parties approach a subject matter are noncompatible and they're non-linkable. is the objectives of a developer are yielded and translating into money and it's mostly basically expressing yield and there's no connection to the basic value of what the historic preservation is tasked to bring forward. there's never that. and in the majority of cases the alt

review and comment on the h.p.c. and the planning commission and then staff has to turn around a letter on your review of the e.i.r. and then get it to the planning commission. so i we can work on the schedulg of that and we'll look at that as a process to get that essentially -- maybe more time in between that so that we can get it to you earlier and that the staff has time to do that, to do a more detailed letter, but that's that window. >> the planning commission has always has two hearings, right? the draft e.i.r. and then the final certification. so there's more of a window -- we're providing our comments before they have their comment on the draft. but we never provide comments before they do the final certification. so i'm wondering if that gives us more flexibility. >> i'm saying what we're trying to do right now is to get your comments on the draft e.i.r. also given to planning commission at the time they hear the public comment. >> the draft. right. >> would it be beneficial to have it come back to the h.p.c

but it is ironic -- i was concerned the h.p.c. and the preservation staff were left out of this action, and then i read that it wasn't a historic resource. it changes the whole dynamic. it does not change the media, which is the planning commission did a very productive provocative thing to make a point. but it takes it out of our realm i was particularly upset when i thought this is a historic issue we have been looking for ways for the planning commission and the h.p.c. to come together and talk about this. and i thought what a perfect item. turns out it is not a historic resource. it does change the dynamic. thank you for following up with me on that. >> thank you. no further comment. we can move onto commission matters. item three as president report and announcements. >> the only announcement i want to make is we are looking to have a joint hearing with the planning commission to discuss issues such as this one. we want to process e.i.r. and have been looking at dates later in january. i think i had forgotten to write the righ

after reviewing the application and recommendation from the h.p.c., staff finds the business has met the three criteria to qualify for listing on the legacy business registry. there is a draft resolution for consideration by the s.b.c. note that a motion in support of the business should be a motion in favor of the resolution. the core physical feature tradition that defines the business is grocery store and delicatessen. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. there is a business representative in attendance who would like to speak on behalf of the application. >> president adams: okay. any commissioner comments before we go into open public comment? okay. public comment is now open. do we have any members of the public who would like to make any comments? >> i'm david zouzounis. thank you, executive director dick andrizzi, and greetings, commissioners. on december 11, 2017, senator wiener and mayor lee held a press conference in front of ted's market to -- to bring a new way to -- for small business to recycle. on that fateful day, mayor lee reached out t

resolution, the application, a case report from planning department staff, and a resolution from the h.p.c., their copies on the table for the public. -- there are copies on the table for the public. item 3-a is alioto's restaurant. alioto's restaurant is a family run seafood restaurant that was opened at a fresh fish stall in 1925 by nunzio al yo owe, a sicilian immigrant. in 1924, he combined the fish stand with the seafood bauer. nunzio died suddenly in 1934, and his wife, rose, took over the business, becoming the first wife to work on the wharf. by 1938, she installed a kitchen and officially opened alioto's restaurant. she continued to develop and improve seafood specialties, including the seafood stew cioppino, which has become a san francisco legend. item 3-b is bay view boat club. the business is a nonprofit recreational boating club that first began meeting in 1961 and officially incorporated in 1963. bayview vote club is dedicated to promoting recreational boating for everyone, with a particular emphasis on bringing boating to underserved neighborhoods and average citizens. thei

very much focused on the ceqa review process and not sort of the entitlement or the other roles of the h.p.c. or the planning commission. so this was very much to be focused on the historic preservation process under ceqa and it's to be a very brief presentation and then staff assumes that we will be giving additional presentations to either commissions based on the outcomes of the conversations today. >> so maybe -- i would like to just offer some guidance. maybe go back to the determinations slide after the three categories. that might be the -- a good place to pick up. the first slide under "determination of historic resource." following the categories, a, b and c. and i think that this is some of the areas that the planning commission may benefit from our knowledge and that is integrity, significance, and condition. and the character defining features, yes. >> are there any additional questions or clarifications on that? and one of the points that i was trying to make in the slide is that you can have a building that is in good condition but it might not have significance. and you can ha

because related to historic preservation specifically, i think that there's a challenge not only at the h.p.c. but within the department, of sort of this notion from the general public that facade retention is a preservation project. and so this design guideline document is also a way to provide some separation between that, to demonstrate that we're not talking about historic preservation here, but as mya said, because often a developer of a project or sponsor coming to us and saying look at the good work that we're going to do. we're going to save this and preserving it. and we are saying that the bar will be a little bit higher in that case. but most of my experience is that this has been voluntary. through the e.i.r. process, as you know, we will give options for partial preservation but those are generally for historic resources. in this case the developer can come and say, hey, i'd like to keep this and we're like this is how you can do that. >> so the example at pine and franklin, you know, the small buildings, that i actually think when we first approved that, i didn't like that desig

what you missing in this discussion is what you did really well with the joint hearing with the h.p.c. this morning, which is to think through what the hell is going on in the review of projects. i would offer that existing housing and displacement of existing housing should be right at the top. residents and existing rent controlled units, and some units that are s.r.o.s and residential hotels are the poor grandchildren, stepchildren of the planning department. no one really digs down on housing issues, and so before you adopt the final budget, i would ask the commission to put on your schedule not just your goals, the mayor's goals for housing shown to you didn't mention one bit about existing residents and existing housing. there's nothing. building new housing is very easy if you ignore the effects of -- on existing housing. right now, i se right -- the number of people who understand the law on s.r.o.s in the planning department is, i think kate conor, who -- who did this for five hotels a couple of years ago. there was an attempt to displace five residential hotels and make them

landmark designation report was prepared by the planning department preservation consulting, and the h.p.c. initiated designation on september 19, 2018 and unanimously recommended landmark designation on november 7, 2018. constructed circa 1870, it's architecturally significant as a very early and well preserved italian villa within a garden setting. in contrast to the much more italian eight row houses, the house has italian detailing on three of its four destinations, indicating that it was meant to be appreciated in its garden setting. out buildings include a historic carriage house and nonhistoric garage. character defining features include the exterior as well as that landscape garden setting. the property owner is very supportive of landmark designation and also planning commissioner richards has been very involved in helping with the landmark designation. the department believes the building meeted the established eligibility status, and the designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation. happy to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss ferguson. before i br

after reviewing the applications and the recommendation from h.p.c., staff finds the businesses have met the three criteria to qualify for listing on the business legacy. there are three considerations for the small business commission one for each of the registry applicants. note a motion in support should be a motion in favor of the resolution. in the resolutions, please pay close attention to the core physical features that define the business. once approved by the s.b.c. the businesses must maintain these physical features or features in order to remain on the legacy business registry. for the bix restaurant and bar for san francisco supply master it's supplier of food service products, for schubert's bakery, bakery. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. there are business representatives in attendance that would like to speak on behalf of the application. >> commissioner: great. thank you, richard, good job. any questions before we go into public comment? i want to invite supervisor fewer up here here to speak for one of the businesses. welcome, super

began, which is the last column in the chart, there have been 200 nominations, 186 applications, and 8600 application fees received. 149 applications were reviewed by h.p.c., and 148 businesses were listed on the registry of the one application you review that has not yet gotten listed on the registry is s.b. 40 carmens, which is presently seeking a new location. [laughter] >> as mentioned in the previous slide, 26 nominations were received during the semiannual period. these 12, on this slide were received in the quarter from april through june. nine of these businesses have been listed on the registry. one is in the approval pipeline, and two are not yet completed. there were additional 14 nominations in the quarter from july through september. ten of these businesses have been added to the registry, two have applications in progress, and two have not yet submitted applications. for the 19 legacy business is added to the businesses during the semiannual period, 17 or 189-point 5% of them were for-profit businesses, and two or 10.5 were nonprofit organizations. for that 148 legacy businesses listed on the registry as of september 30th, 81.8% of them wer