. >> mr. frye, i have one question, announcement. i was coming home late last night from the hockey game and one of the facades on pine came down. they that had whole area cordoned off. >> no, there's a high speed chase. so it had nothing to do with the building. this brings up the question. do we make them rebuild it? >> that's a good question. there are ceqa implications and policy implications to figure out what is the best course of action. i will say that somewhat related now that we have a compliance staff member, we are talking with the zoning administrator about certain policies on whether or not to require somebody to build something if it's been demolished or neglected and some of those policies will be coming to you this year hopefully by the summer and maybe at that time is a good opportunity to discuss situations like you are bringing up. i know, was it the columns at the san francisco center, there was a lawsuit >> no. the front part of the building. >> when we have that discussion can you bring some of the information

. >> hello, as mr. frye mentioned with did comments at the last hearing we had a few recommendations and we are happy to see that this has been incorporated into this subversion and we are in support of this version of the legislation. we feel this will be very fortunate -- important and useful moving forward. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. back to the commission. are there comments, questions? >> i think they did a good job in summarizing what we were involved in in the kind of rambling discussion. >> do i have a motion? >> i have a question on assuming we keep the second paragraph of item 2. in the revised assuming we keep that in the resolution, do we also want to agendaize and make the next step. we were talking about having a design discussion or policy about facade retention. is that something that should be in discussion and brought to the full? >> if i might ask ms. smith because sf heritage is hosting a symposium on this. if that's scheduled, who

. >> mr. frye, we were conferring about some of the language. i think it would be helpful to back up a second and get a better understanding of what the commission would like us to achieve. is it a matter of making it more general or -- our approach was the commission still had a desire to call out some aspect of the facade retention in the policy. so we shrunk it, added it to partial preservation and the first paragraph is meant to be very gentle -- general and the second paragraph to cases where facade maybe an option. the easiest to do is to replace the second paragraph. >> i was going to open up that conversation. do we want to eliminate that second paragraph or make sure the resolution has facade retention. >> that was the basis of our discussion and sort of started it. i think it has to be wrapped in there. >> maybe we'll just leave it alone. >> i would make a recommendation to leave it alone. >> it's fine with me. >> does this mean we retract it. >> can we have a motion? >> i would like to make a motion to approve as it is presented to us

good morning, mr. poore. i believe you are represented by cathy frye, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> unlike cedric whose public defender is likely to be carrying a heavy case load and have limited resources, james poore has hired a private defense attorney. >> miss frye has been in this morning. not guilty plea entered on your behalf. good luck. >> thank you. >> after the arraignment, the two brothers try to talk. but an officer notices the exchange and separates them. >> did that go the way you thought? >> oh, no. i didn't know nothing about no attorney. how is his court process moving quicker than mine. >> you tried to talk after you were arraigned. what were you trying to say to him? >> how did you get an attorney? how were you able to afford an attorney. i know i'm scrambling to try to get an attorney myself. >> you gonna be cool? >> it never hurts to shed a tear especially when you're a man of deep feelings. >> catch up, catch up, catch up. >> on the advice of his new attorney, james declined to discuss the case any further. but as he is led to a single-person se