commissioner wolfram. >> i would caution our commission a little bit that i think that our goals should not be trying to find the perfect alternative. remember, that there's a sponsor there, they have a project, and they're trying to get their project build anbuilt and they'o get the alternative built. we can spend time on having good alternatives but our role should be conveying to the planning commission why we think that the resource should be saved. not to get too obsessed with all of these alternatives. because the sponsors do not want their alternatives built. that's not their goal. and it's a procedural matter and i think that as much as we can afford the commission about the historic resource and its importance and they can weigh that in to the discussions of the alternatives but -- i mean, i think that commissioner moore said that there's a sponsor there and they've got financial objectives and the reason they want to demolish the building is because it most likely does not meet their financial objectives. not that they are anti-preservation but that it's want meeting their pro

. >> thank you, commissioner wolfram. >> i have a question for staff relative to the issue of timeliness of the -- of when we present our material. we're getting the draft e.i.r., often it's a week before, and the staff has to write the letter and then we'd ask more staff to potentially write more letters. but is there a way that we could -- the hearing could come earlier? i'm just curious about the e.i.r. process. >> okay. so there's two hearings, right? because there's the h.p.c. hearing on the alternative. i think that could definitely happen earlier and i think that was actually the goal of changing that. is that instead of having a fully developed alternative coming to you under the a.r.c., we would do that more as a scoping activity. and then we do provide notes on that. and then we can figure out potentially how that would get to planning commission. so we'll look at the process on that. and come up with how is it best to get that information to the planning commission and when it should go to them. and the other question -- so that i think that we're sort of addressing some of th

. >> thank you, commissioner wolfram. >> thank you. i think this is a great document but i do want to sort of second commissioner hillis' concernor question about the potential projects that there was a historic resource and because of overriding consideration that it's being demolished but potentially retained. there seems to be a gap there. for example, the 450 o'farrell project had been approved as originally designed it would have had retained elements. but if we say that it doesn't apply -- the historic design guidelines wouldn't be appropriate for that either. so i'm just wondering how we address that. because it seems that we don't want to then have projects that were historic and they retained elements but we're not using this document for. >> right. it's a great point and i think that is something that we need to certainly clarify. you could make the argument, although it sounds very bureaucratic, because we're demolishing the resource it's no longer historic and, therefore, the guidelines don't apply. >> that's a technical on

they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for erlman and commissioner wolfram. planning commissioner fong. hillis. johnson. moore. and we do expect commissioners melgar and richards to arrive shortly. commissioner koppel may be absent today. you have two items on your calendar. item one, the communication between commissions. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department staff. welcome to this first joint hearing of 2019. and i wanted to make a few comments to you before you dive into your calendar. first of all the calendar was structured based on comments that we received by your commission officers and we've done our best to draft those as best as possible to allow for an engaging dialogue over this morning. but it takes no small effort to pull all of this together. so i wanted to make sure that you were all familiar with the planners that are joining us for your technical questions and any comments that you may have this morning. we have lisa gibson and a allis, and anne marie rogers and in the back row pilar ralilali, and justin greving and desiree smith. a

erlman and commissioner wolfram. planning commissioner fong. hillis. johnson. moore.ect commissioners melgar and richards to arrive shortly. commissioner koppel may be absent today. you have two items on your calendar. item one, the communication between commissions. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department staff. welcome to this first joint hearing of 2019. and i wanted to make a few comments to you before you dive into your calendar.