civic groups, etc. i'd really appreciate mr. fries help and ms. hilliard's help in trying to find a way to catalog this in a short marijuana commissioner johnck. >> yeah. i think the direction we're moving ♪ the way of sprint if up from the user end as a professional in the field i use the northwest information center a lot in some states part of the depository information in california as outreach for the preservation office if there's so i would this report is going to go into that depository i read for example, a medicaid waiver library congress so i would rely on what's in the folder and bans

the comments with the inaccuracy unless we can deal with that that's a problem to have the report adopted so number one the second thing i think that, you know, that i went to the workshop we had and met mr. murray from the performing arts center and met this person in charge the security of the arts museum he turned out to be a landscape architecturally architect without a degree and another gentleman from the district there are so many areas of discussion for this arena i think i'm sorry they're not here today they had interesting things to say but i and i guess

third you know, i think where the confusion is this is an inventory that's the name of the project the civic center landscaper it is a nice idea to expand it into a culture landscape report but with the accuracy it's not not raising the integrities you'll find that in a true landscape report naming a landscape so the direction of somehow closing that up this is an inventory that has the features in it we should go ahead with a that and somehow - and commissioner pearlman >> yeah. i want to second and third those comments from the past two commissioners while i

certainly know some of the basic facts about the area didn't know the inaccuracy until i read the 10 package report so a must be of the public i would have thought oh, this is exactly what happened we need to wish careful the act it's an inventory that's extremely good it has a validity and if we can find a way as director ram talked about referencing the previous documents you know and identifying there's inaccuracy so we're not adapting something that the public thinks is the complete and final is on what is is boo about so i agree with the various other commissioners that if we can find a fairly easy way

to split out the inventory so we can get it into use. >> commissioner wolfram. >> yeah. i'll agree with the other commissioners, i think i do wish there was is more in the inventory more analysis contributing i think the thing that makes me nervous there's 2rik9 features listed and i i hope their integrity but the art agency in the public library are those the murals that were removed in the p zoning oh, $0.35 that's not accurate because they're no longer there so those little things the things that make me nervous the civic center can use help so there's a project to make

changes and looked at it want 2rik9 features and is we can't touch the contributing features we want to be careful whether this is a contributing features i'm thinking about the small-scale features that could affect projects and regarding the initial section on the sort of chronological history for those context cigarette butt maybe to do a chronological about the section i was trying to figure out what happened to the foundation ♪ the civic center sometimes their referring to in a different way and talk about the jets and sometimes they're called pools

and sometimes foundation it's hard to say rather than sacrificing signature of the history but the chronological of the history >> commissioner norton. >> i move that way we continue this item until the next meeting to allow mr. frye and his staff to give us a report on the then current status of dealing with this document. >> i'll second that. >> and before we move on i want to express gratitude to mr. haas on hills spending time on this project. >> there's a motion and second commissioner johnck pr commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner pearlman commissioner wolfram president hasz so moved, commissioners, that

motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that will place you on item 9 for the cases and 2014646 mills act on peer street 563 on wall street and 621 wall street consideration for adaptation. >> good afternoon department staff item before you are the 3 contracts submitted to the planning commission on may 1st of this year and ready for your recommendation the recommendation would be to review and recommend approval to the board of supervisors for the draft resolutions as well as the draft maintenance and restoration plan, which were

included in our packet the millions talks about entering into contracts with private owners this allows the private taxes for an appropriate restoration plan to dates the department headlines holds 163 went forward and processing through the process i want to appointee beginning of our packet on package 2 item b should be 56 to 567 waller street and item c is 621 waller street a point of clarification the 3 new contracts under review are for contributing buildings

into the landmark striblt designated under article 10 and they filed an operation the property types are 3 residential properties 2 of which or single-family dwellings the agreements are 10 year resolving contract and your commission packets contain a draft evaluation outlining the tax savings each figure was compiled by the controller's office and each property owner as outlined with the assistance of department preservation staff a rehabilitation and maintenance plan that insures work will the conducted in performance of the secretary of interiors

standards. >> 67 pier street a basement wood-framed dwelling and constructed in 1899 the value of the property valued under $30 million month and the maintenance plan contains roof and cartridge repair and seismic upgrades and roving non-historic windows and putting others in the place and staircase restoration and citing repairs in the exterior he recommendation to recommend approval to the board of supervisors for the following reasons the property is an historic landmark and the maintenance and restoration plan was found to meet the secretary of interiors standards next is 563 to 567 waller street

a wood frame 3 family building and constructed in 19 hundred the value under $3 million and the maintenance plan would include the foundation work and restoration of the front entrance details including the appropriate doors and stair railings and the relocation of gas meters to minimize their visibility and the recommendations to recommend approval to the board of supervisors because it is an historic resource under article 10 and the maintenance and restoration plan is appropriate and meets the secretary of interiors standards last property is 621 waller street a 2 1/2 story over basement single-family dwellings in queen ann style this prompt

is values e valued under $3 million the corrective work to the state he e site and the envelope to prevent water damage the property has had issues and wrought iron railing and exterior paint and historically appropriate colors and the department staff recommendation to recommend approval to the board of supervisors as the reason under the article 10 for the maintenance and restoration plan is appropriate and meets the secretary of interiors standards that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer questions there are property owners here as well as john from the acce accessors office if you have questions. >> commissioner johns. >> i do have a question about

the late prompt in the to what extent do we get into the aesthetics when we approve those things i'm interested in what appears to be an all black building. >> so what's interesting at the time of the delores park survey for the landmark district it was actually in historic pink colors the property was sold between that time and repainted to this mat gray that's popper at the moment we wouldn't not necessarily it's a recommendation and correct me if i am wrong with regards to the ordinance but we'll try to get the property owners to bring it back to a pink but our main

goal a protective layer of paint to protect the wood elements. >> commissioner tim frye department staff designating ordinances specific in regards to the departments and the commission not regulating paint color but as ms. president fewer why i said the finish having a paint finish is characteristic of the district under your purview. >> is there a difference between regulating and damned. >> there's no harm in a friendly suggestion (laughter). >> the windows are going to be worked on and those needs to be repainted they would be probably be brought back to a different color than current and the

current owners have not resided in the property for that long prefer to have the historic colors so better reflect the context of the district. >> let them reflect what they want is that property owner here. >> yes. >> mr. knight what you said one second i have a quick question. >> so just so we know are you going to change the color so our commission understands we're not regulating it. >> right we inherited the house like this and quite liked it to although i feel what is missing is more craft to the windows and the main house if it were up to me i'd keep is dark and have a yaft on the window frame but -

>> there are bill clinton in her. >> buckner. >> he's a good color consultant you might see him and there's a few color folks here i've worked with. >> we've seen a lot of mr. buck next year's stuff they're really good so okay. thank you any other questions for the prvrn on this one okay. okay commissioners any questions before we go to public comment seeing none, i have one speaker card deanna gage no are there any members of the public who wish to speak seeing none, british columbia's. >> i move to approve second commissioners on the position to approve the 3 mills act

resolutions commissioner johnck uncommon commissioner matsuda commissioner pearlman commissioner wolfram president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 10. >> again, thank you everyone. >> commissioners for the appropriateness and permits for the renewal of the motion and zero 212. >> yeah. good afternoon, commissioners tim frye department staff it's that time of year green again where we very visit our delegation it is up for reconsideration what we've learned over the course of the

last several years initiated us to bring back the advocacy of the a delegation we find there to be a benefit to consolidating all your delegation so what's being passed out a slightly different thing i've underlined the areas that have changed and wanted to walk through the revised motion with you and get our feedback quickly though just to recruitment about the preservation entitlements are approved at the staff level through the delegation motion and through the scopes are seen as reroutine providing they follow the resolutions in your

delegation we've identified a couple of scopes of work given the backlog and unanimous of permits could help streamline things for property owners and tenants but also included a certain level of certainty and in terms of process and design expected from the commissioners or department staff you see a delegation that includes all article 10 and 11 properties so this is admin permits we're suggesting the two year delegation which is worked fairly well in the past and on the first page in the whereas clauses one item we thought would be helpful to include is there's often a lot of

discussion at the planning information counter about ordinary maintenance and repair we've lifted the definition from our code in article 10 and 11 this is giving you an easy way to point to one document that they may not know how to maneuver through the planning code this gives a great point of reference for folks to let them know with it has a definition for your standards but it exempt from not from getting a permit everything remains the same except window replacement is basically the same the one additional clause was for

individually designated landmark building per article 10 from the small workers cottage at 9 hundred van ness to the wells house and changing window openings and removing fabric was a different scope and should be elevated by this commission previously we reviewed this at the staff level it's safe to say we haven't had projects take advantage of this but we thought to put it in there to our review if you agree with our changes so this is on page 3 under subsection b in the paragraph whether to replace a secondary facade i did add that the language under subsection two to provide clarity for the public

on page 4 under rooftop equipment we've seen especially in the downtown area it is a number of rooftop decks that we are able to approve microwavely but not able to productive the access to the decks that has to come to you we've breakdown this into two categories based on rooftop equipment and elevator override within the c-3 district outside those are traditionally sites that have requirements about height restriction so there's a definition but this allows us under 4 to approve elevator over rides and this is generally the condition we're seeing especially downtown under number 5 the revolver top

equipment outside the zoning district there's perimeters that allows us to improve on something that is minimally visible that's appropriate to leave it in under number 7 on page 5 we added a sentence about applicable special sign districts this is comes into play more often in the waterfront district both which very specific time controls that are out loud of this bodies purview but something we're required to enforce per the planning code this allows us to be up front about the requirements remainder of page 5 and 6 are the same except for item 11 we specified for item 11 and 12

those properties within the c-3 zion e zoning has to do with the rear yard decks and stairways there's a difference between residential and downtown properties we wants wanted to make sure and 13 and 14 remain the same about the removal of non-defineable feature and i've underlined the elements included here so you've reviewed this as part of your packet the security measures we've seen a number of security measures come in over the past couple of years and want to make sure there's a mechanism to approve those are administratively quickly and efficiently we've added from the last versions a.d. exterior

lighting the condition we're would like property owners to achieve is to make sure not only the exterior lighting but any security measures are in a secret location to minimize them they're not getting huge fixtures you outside of the building o securing things that is my quick overview and happy to discuss this certainly, if there's other scopes of work you think should be included but overlay we thank you, again for your trust we feel the delegation is working to get to our workload with that, >> question about on page had the rooftop equipment and roof

elevator over ride is that the c-3 districts. >> yes. >> make that clear because it's confusing with 5 if something has an elevator over ride it is in 3 not 5. >> so add that we should probably do that for all of them. >> typically you have them outside but not inside. >> offering good point. >> i didn't see others where you have it's both i mean, i could double check those. >> mr. frye a question on number 15 not only under our purview but what's the rules on the security i i know that a building that came out that was

permitted it is an example of what we don't want your correcting just so everyone it is a restaurant that went in and did a bunch of work and put up national thank you security gates and the planning code is that all security including the security gates be a minimum of 75 percent non-visible as part of the mandates under the security measures one of the big items any sort of housing or structure relied things be concealed we've been successful in downtown mandating that but to let folks know that solid

roll down doors are not appropriate anywhere in the city and a few measures we'll see ask for as part of the landmark. >> part of the hayes is that gate coming down. >> i'm not sure i can look at that. >> commissioners any other questions okay is there anyone who wishes to speak on the item? seeing none, public comment is closed back to you, commissioners. >> i move to approve. >> thank you. >> commissioner. on that motion to approve the renewal of motions with zero 188 a riersz commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner pearlman commissioner wolfram president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to

zero. >> with that, we'll adjourn that meeting >> everyone here to the tender loin rec center in district six, thank you for being here and it is an exciting day for the city of san francisco and for the rec and park department and for the 32 different parks and places that will have free wifi now thanks to the gift from google and sf city and this is a pro-sxwrekt that is three years in the making and two years originally negotiate with google and researching and

implementing this from the leadership of department of technology and all of the different cities agencis that have come together. free wifi in the city of san francisco and what it means, internet access in today's world is no longer pay luxury or a nice thing to have, it is a necessary, if we want the future generations of children to be able to compete in the future and to be able to learn on par with everyone else in the world internet access has to be a no brainer and a given and for adult to compete in today's world, internet access should be an economic right and the fact that we are able to bring the free wifi across the neighborhoods and the communitis that have not had internet access and that is one of the key aspects of this project and something that everyone is excited about. it is made possible