like we don't know it would be that it goes in that way and a different way. >> the 2 percent is in the subsidy. >> correct. >> okay commissioners did you have questions. >> anyone else? >> yeah. >> sherren you were talking about it in home support for the middle-income and one million dollars for two years. >> it is one million dollars for each of two years. >> for each of two years. >> right. >> a pilot project. >> right. >> what's the plan for dos to get this program off the ground that's a great question we didn't found out until this week that will be in the mayor's office budget we have to look at setting it up to study it so we need to know the outcomes we

will have what we'll do a subsidy program so is it not going to be you know we did try a piloted for people to qualify for in-home care services but had to pay something we didn't need to study is that will be a subsidy important people who either don't qualify or want to pay for one we'll bring back the stakeholder that kind of helped to put this together and work with the community living fund probably a mechanism we have in place and decide how to prioritize people that is hard we'll not have enough money for 14 thousand people and don't know this is quite the right number we can probably serve to 50 people in a year

and so we have to think carefully how what populations we want to look at it and learn and it will be something that will start as soon as we know that is getting to the budget and how much money we'll start those discussions soon. >> it's right around the corner. >> i'm aware we need to get going on that. >> thank you. >> any other questions commissioners you had a question from - >> come forward. >> good morning commissioner president james and commissioners congratulations director ma fasten and welcome i appreciate

this egypt for the recreation of the one time board of supervisors funding for your information commissioners when it came to that one time funding cuts we were notified in the senior center we'll be kit $77,000 that notification of cuts and again, we're grateful for this board of supervisors submitting that one time monies to support us but when you get notified $7,000 cuts that effects your nutrition program basically a cut for me this morning i wanted clarification are in terms of the mayors budget i'm grateful that the mayor's office of budget will restore out of the 2. $4 million a one time money cuts to a 1.2

that means it, it is a partial funding and commissioners respective this is still a cut for us in the senior network as the executive director who is responsibly for that in terms of advocacy for the seniors we're talking about less meals so for us we're needing your support and the departments in terms of the recess central station we need full restored funding it talks to the need and programs for seniors in san francisco is a lot of dialogue going on and a lot of advocacy for different things in terms of for the seniors in san francisco the dignity fund is one of the alternative transportation that is positive it is still far apart and needs to be negotiated

i wanted everyone to please pay attention to that commissioner president james i know i have one minute and 31 seconds left i wanted to thank you for that emphasis and it is hard san francisco everybody knows it is going far we know about that but we need to participation to the seniors that built san francisco and we need san francisco need to respective our seniors in aging give them the dignity they deserve thank you very much. >> you wanted to comment on that. >> thanks steve yes. i think that all of the letters that went out about the nutrition cuts we should had to send out the letters we didn't know about the budget looks like until the process is over we know the partial reiteration i

neglected to 30i9 one of the things in the mayors budget the increase for the nonprofit for cost of doing business in addition to the 2. 5 percent last year, i wanted to make sure i said r added that to the report. >> i appreciate that becoming we're appreciative we're appreciative my job to advocate for the seniors. >> thank you. >> so i want to thank executive director sherren for the update other than the dignity fund but take a minute to fill in details as you may know strong legislation was entered a week ago we know from the mayors budget he's on board for the support of dignity fund we're very, very far apart be in terms of the proposal we have

the legislation we have and what the mayor is proposing at this point for us we'll be meeting with supervisors many of them have a asked for a ram up a reasonable way to get the money and plan and spend it we are talking about proposals with them but the mayor's office is $6 million is the biggest we've ever see in the forgive first year that is less than we've been getting through the community advocacy we've got a lot more work to do we have meeting with the mayor's office and plan for the future we have to plan for people with aging hiv and the people with disabilities and 25 percent of the population thirty percent in 2030 we need to plan for veterans many fall out in terms of the services they get and agency the home care pilot a lot of seminars and people with disabilities that need help at

home and barely holding on paying their bills when it comes time to stay in their home they need assistance but the dignity fund needs to continue after that. >> now we need to move on interrupted with the public comment but anyway, advisory council report. >> good morning commissioner president james and commissioners executive director mcfadden the advisory council meet on may 18th and the executive director came and shared information which the growth felt department and the funding with dos one of our advisory council members shared his experience with from the field on terms on

things that issues that are take place with seniors was great to see the director was interest to help direct this particular individual in the right direction and work with dos and be harmonious with the service and also i can say we have 16 members on the advisory council short 6 those 6 we're short comes in the supervisors so we are actively i guess we'll talk with the supervisors to make sure they holed up their end of the bargain and get people on board with the advisory council we have a discussion about the site visits and how we must do ramp up and came to the exclusion in we had 22 members

on board we could do the site visits and to the commission and what needs to be done in terms of the site and one council person shared her site visit to the jewish community i said this in a previous meeting but shared her insight and visit on the weekend she got to see what goes on on the weekends and the education committee we will have our next training will be on july 22nd and dos and apple bee the liaison with the department set up a presentation with usf and meeting for the first time at the usf mission bay campus on

june 22nd at 1:30 and the presentation will be aging and mental health. >> we had council person went to the senior rally in sacramento and report back an effective rally the seniors talked with the legislators and got out the message we're not going may place and seniors are here not going any place and a lot more behind us so that's the end of my report. >> thank you. >> any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> joint legislative community report ms. lawrence. >> good morning i want to give you a report from our may 18 meeting two pieces of

old business we discussed the ended up of life bill in that 2, 3, 4 effect june 9th and then the letters of support were sent in support of ab 1584 by assembly person brown that reverses the cost of living for the state security income and payment policeman's and then also for ab 1654 by assembly person dodd that will are increase the person care allowance from 35 to dollars a month noticed that no increase in that funding since 1984 and while inflation has gown up one and 80 percent we have new business we discussed the fact that revenues are coming in

slower than expected the amount of funding from the state level for programs making less than expected by combrsh is interested in a bundle of legislation what those delays we didn't discuss but keep on tracking this is the end of the two year at the beginning the session a brand new set of legislation to look at and there is discussion at the state level about allowing people that are on citizens advisory committee to have access to cal works and funding - to nutrition services currently they don't that's what we're continuing to monitor a new piece of legislation that we discussed and that was disabled plaque card reform a piece of legislation by assembly person god ab 2602 currently the

disabled placards allow for free parking meters throughout the state that was kind of gone pursuant to intentionally intended the city and county are losing money and concern over where their properly used or not so this bill will based the two tier solution a report from donald and others from 2015 their public policy analysts and bill will do away with free that concludes my remarks for people with placards and monitor the way that placards are issued the cities and counties loss millions annually and no reimbursement and michigan and illinois have to r a two tier

solution weigh look at that and san francisco advisory committee is supporting this bill and dos participated in that the advisory committee and looking at 6 recommendations would be for the city and increasing blue zones and improving the enrollment of that will be the order. issued and placard approvals and removing the exemption and establish reasonable time limits for the parking i wanted to give you an updated on two other bills obviously did placard and many of the bills we've been monitoring such is ab 1584 on increases in the supplemental they've been in committee and in suspense that's

the way the appropriations committee looks at they bundle them together and look like how to divvy up the funds. and there's one that is the senator louis sb 447 that is the aging and long term court reporting council referred to the committee on aging and long term care and the update on the dignity fund and at the federal level the credit for care act 2016 is in the was and means committee that allows up to 3 thousand per year deduction for long term care and then the bills on autism legislation

senate bill there is no action on >> are there any questions. >> i know i talked fast. >> yes. i'm very much interested in the placard because it does allow for definition yeah. very much and getting around in san francisco. >> their not do away with the placards but. >> the two two tier. >> the two tier time limits of how this you can park for free or if they look at the meters and the sergeant of the meters so far payment some are not assessable for easy of payment so that's what their looking at and establishing circumstances under which some whether that is on the placard itself with the presentation where some disabled and elderly would have access to free parking but not a broad

free parking across the board two reports and i can send them to bridget to include in your minutes. >> yes. and because getting independence. >> it calls on the dpvm to track the placards and there is the the devil is in the details but all i'll send this to bridget. >> for the details okay. thank you. >> one comment it is shown a program they limit the plan for 4 hours for medical. >> that's what their looking like. >> a lot of things we know about but i think for our it is quite - >> that's the timeframe they're talking about part of two tier solution.

>> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> next is the long term care coordinating council. >> good morning, commissioners i'm ship a member of the long-term care council we met on may 12th the first presentation a needs sergeant that recommends 5 years for expanding the areas of service and strengthening existing programs and improving awareness and serving adult disabilities and in coalition with other departments and a presentation for the middle-income study which the director's report contained as well i have nothing to add a discussion on meetings with supervisors and i believe that most of those meetings have

occurred in the month of may we'll get a report back at the next meeting thursday june 9th and that's about it from my report any questions. >> you mentioned you study and recommend 5 areas for senior services okay name those 5 areas. >> i named them but i'll go over them more slowly the first expanding new areas of services this is for seniors and adult disabilities the second is strengthening the existing programs, the third is improving awareness and messaging of task services the figure out serve adult disabilities more effectively and the first time is collaboration with other departments. >> would you put a dollar amount for those.

>> no we have not this is mark farrell an assessment no budget analysis. >> you'll follow-up with those improvements. >> that's on the directors plate. >> any other questions. >> well we'd like to wait for the directors answer. >> thank you so sir, is really reporting on the long term kr0r7bd council so he basically heard the same presentation on the needs assessment in the area plan the specifically needs ascertainment we've heard from you commissioner ow so some of the same recommendations when rose and i did the presentation is what he's referring to we'll devolve into those areas just pointing out things that are important for the department as we move forward and you know one of the things we hope to do is that in the future we will be

able to attach dollars signs to various recommendations when we do the needs assessments and hopefully, we'll look at gaps we're not there yet but those are the recommendations he had when i was thinking about when i wanted to pay attention to going forward. >> imagine. >> staff report. >> well, i guess you can judge. >> we're all here. >> but what do you expect we have a big rally a senior rally and in sacramento thousands of seniors and a model and chant was seniors count

and they were here they'll have you all chanting that when you get a huge group of gray haired voter they are their associates saying seniors count they pay attention in sacramento so that's one good thing one thing that was nutrition georgia again was part of it throughout the last year when we had different representatives from state programs and departments talk to us come out nutrition was right up there on the top of their concerns and it came out ♪ good the concerns about nutrition and programming for nutrition and amongst other things we'll keep the seniors healthy and independent what was covering all of this was that all over

the state including us seen the percentage of seniors in the population has been increasing every year and will continue to increase in the future and that must be considered in the meantime when you look at the budget programs for seniors have been frozen and cut back and a few have been cut out so that financial backing is going down while the number of seniors is increasing so that is something we need to consider as we look at things, of course, if we keep on increasing we might take over that was an interesting program and one thing that change you

know working with the staff the state staff for the commission has been good i've enjoyed it their bright and kevin about us they organ well and follow-up on what they say but what i saw at that meeting the respective they have from the members of the government from people from different businesses and programs that were there you can, see they'll respective them and worked with them we're asking their advice and wanted to go together with them so what it means is if we're trying to develop a program to get something through we have a fantastic resource in the staff from the state commission their generous and they care they really care about what we do and

knowledgeable so seeing them interacting at the rally and let me see what a fantastic right away that concluded my report. >> thank you case. >> good morning, commissioners valerie i'm a board member of case and also the director of the senior center this time of year is busy for case our budget and advisory committee work hard to make sure the mayor and board of supervisors are aware of our podium and at the same time, we're supporting the budgetus coalition podium as well as different security task force to

today is news from director mcfadden what guarantee good news not over until the final budget is approved and continuing to meet with the board of supervisors which meetings have been set up during the senior rally we had in conjunction with the senior disabilities folks we hand-carried over 2 thousand pot cards to respective supervisors and mayor they're very aware of what we're asking for we also want to invite you all we're excited one of our member agencies institute on angling has offered a continuing ed course at the next membership meeting i have handouts flyers i didn't get them out but one of the things that are happening at

the senior centers the phenomena of bowling and it is something that we've seen over the years but it has become more acute and so we started looking for somebody to help us begin the conversation how to handle to preserve the safe and friendly environmentalist for everyone but handle those kind of individuals challenging to the senior centers we don't say a mental health component we may need to look at that in the future we 79 the senior center services is to be available for all people at times the acuteness is beyond our staffing level abilities so this presentation and course that patrick from the harbor called how to identify and

respond to challenging and bullying behaviors we're offering continuing ed for many progressives if you want i'll leave the flyers and free to our members and if our members are bringing other folks we'll to get a sense how many more foams o people might be there we'll be prepared we're excited it is the beginning of the conversation i'm getting more calls from my colleagues from the same issues and some of the people we're having problems with radio bouncing around from one senior center to another and we will to do the right thing but know what your limits are and other maybe partners can do to help us what that that's the beginning and i think that our next membership meeting is june 13th at the groceries center and we're going

to get started right on time so the people that are asking for continuing ed can meet their requirements but it operationally is an interesting session. >> any questions. >> yes. >> emily. >> yes. >> i'm just wondering where you folks nonprofit organizations have been tapping into the management services by the public health department and started to come you know once a week or month whatever and educate our staff also. >> we're looking at that commissioner i think that traditionally the older adult individual is not open too much to going to clinics but we have a referral to the mental health services amend as you may know

older adults have the right to fail and we make appropriate referrals refuse the services and go to the next center we're looking at training so we can handle situations more carefully and more mind fully. >> i'm just saying that you know has been come to your center center. >> we've tried if that and probably have to do a more official invite and get the higher-ups to support that but the department of health didn't send their professionals out to our centers we'll look at that. >> it will be for the seniors it will be a non-threatening environment and maybe someone from the department of health. >> we'll look at that thank

you. >> next this is we have some public comment but item t is there any general public comment at this time? hearing none, old business >> none new business okay. all i's require a vote item a supervise transfer of ownership the staff is melissa can i have a motion to discuss. >> so moved and seconded. >> good morning commissioner president james and director mcfadden i'm the acting deputy director at the department of aging & adult services so this is referring to the rosa parks senior center and the human services agency will be taking over ownership of the rosa parks senior center in the next few

months the final date is yet to be determined the property was offered to the city as a cost off $1 currently the office on the aging offers programs at the rosa parks senior self-center this acquisition allows the facilities are operating appropriately at the site no rent as we will the site will be owned - we'll provide maintenance and janitorial services this has an inadequate but will be taken care of a sewer line it is needing work so the developer will be fixing that at no cost to us and so this problem has resulted in the assembly bathrooms for the clients for the clients

using staff bathrooms this proposes sanctuary conditions and so that's a big issue in the center that will be corrected that the acquisition when the site is completed an additional one and 50 seniors in the complex of the rosa parks senior are supervise will serve three hundred clients at the rosa parks center and we request your support in the acquisition of this property. >> are there any questions. >> what's the location. >> on the - >> commissioner ow. >> is it close to market street. >> it is golden gate and between golden gate and turk. >> so the senior housing; right? >> yes. currently and doubling they're building angle additional tower. >> how large is the tower

going to be. >> an additional one hundred and 50 seniors we're just acquiring the property that did senior center is on. >> what about a new tower is it going to be the dos going to take over the tower. >> no, just the senior center and that building. >> thank you. >> okay. >> okay commissioners commissioner sims. >> is there a precedent for this has the city done this in the past. >> i don't know. >> the city has done this with certain buildings i think that the impetus the mayor's office of housing was really looking to make sure that the senior center is in good hands and the immigrant it oversees is the

department it understand the adult disabilities as you may know the rental assistance demonstration project where new developers or new development management organizations are taking over the management of senior housing and not just senior housing but the senior sites that the authority has run previously this is kind of an unusual situation in this case the tenderloin development corporation don't care over the housing and will manage the housing and it is attached as commissioner ow mentioned there is one tower there already and another tower of senior housing but the senior center is in the middle they don't have the expertise to run senior and dos has a nonprofit provider right

now the orientation is bayview hunters point senior services they run the western edition senior center as well. >> bayview so is it make sense to oversee those services but we don't have the expertise to manage the building itself, however, human services agency does because human services agency he manage a lot of those and has a history it make sense to that. >> is there a budget attached to this. >> so we're already bayview is operating the senior center and the main things will be an increase in janitorial services and purchase a sink and those sinks at all fall within the

contingency so no additional request requests to modify the budget in any way. >> go ahead commissioner. >> that bother me those are front loaded expenses that you anticipate by the long term cost of maintaining the building there must be an anticipated cost for the maintenance of this facility roofs and walls and paint and floor you know repair and replacement over time a burden cost somebody has to pay that. >> john correct me if i am wrong that falls into the facilities for the human services agency. >> ; correct? >> yeah. >> so social service is that social services run out of by bayview hunters point or will we provide associate or social

services there separate. >> they currently operate at the bayview and encouraging operating the senior center. >> are we serving meals how many people are we serving. >> yes. we are serving measles and do you know how many on an average daily and 50 people. >> the report indicates up to three hundred in captivity. >> right? >> are anticipated. >> and what the abilities to increase that capacity are we increasing the capacity or maintaining the capacity. >> one of the things that they haven't tried to do they didn't know they've not tried to

increase the capacity new we know that is the plan moving forward the senior center will be continuing to operate now they can work on increasing the capacity. >> so i wanted to separate this when you increase the capacity will that funding go to bayview hunters point to increase the capacity or will be a separate budget for the department to handle. >> so when we do any of the senior centers or active seminars we contract with the you know there are no a procurement process and if a mr. starr organization we negotiate that them how many people they'll serve and what the dollars look like i believe right now we're in the middle of contract with them so if they were to minded toe increase we'll go through the rfp process and nail propose that and someone will propose that and see who wins the contract and

negotiate about the number of people they're serving right now they have in the budget whatever they have we can't give them more money if they serve more people but certainly proposed that or other organization when we go out to rfp again i don't know when the contract ended we're in mid-contract. >> we're in the middle of a contract only two years left on that contract. >> there were concerns about the food i've heard concerns about that. >> we're always i'm personally happy to hear the concerns and i'll be happy to look at it. >> one of the members of the advisory council said something. >> i'll be happy to look at that. >> any other questions. >> okay. >> could i have a motion.

>> public comment. >> any public comment on this? >> any public comment? hearing none, call for the >> i. >> opposed? the i's have it. that motion carries. >> thank you. >> review and approval the fiscal year 2016-2017 area plan and health insurance and the high cap budget and state budget app one six and 7 and 2016-2017 dash those 6 and all subsequent motion. >> can i have a motion to discuss. >> good morning complains and commissioners and director mcfadden i work for the human services agency and what is here before you for approval is area

plan and health insurance and advocacy or high cap budgets and contracts for fiscal year 2016-2017 and any intunth amendments this details a variety of federal and state allocation for the area plan and high cap program the net effective for the fiscal year 2015-2016 is an increase 200 and $31,000 plus for a total of $300,000 plus and 5 hundred and 78 for the high cap budget for a total of three hundred and 64 thousand dollars plus the grid attached details the area plan fluctuations in federal and state funding by title and dos program staffs recommended actions the programs to be funded including the support services and congregate

and disease prevention and obama buds man and as well as administration funding for that the programs the local support is not included the support services is allocated to transportation and information referrals and emergency temporary home care for seniors as mentioned in the commission memo the biggest driver for the funding cycle is the nutrition with an increase of $41,000 plus in the congratulated meals and one and $26,000 plus for the home delivery programs the high cap is largely unchanged this year, the program assaults the public will medicare and long term care options medicare related health care and insurance topics the accompanying contracts app

1617 dash 06 and other one details the funding requirements related to the programs in each felt funding stream with the approval of 24 item the staff will make the modification please let me know if you have any questions. >> commissioner loo. >> yeah. i'm looking at the budget page 11 of 14 pages. >> okay. >> it is my observation okay. i'm just wondering for the congregate measles the income on donations is 11 want 83 percent all right. and the home deliver meal is 30 percent i'm wondering

now not getting attractions okay. and the home dliefrp meal is more expensive panning than the congregate meals all right. so is it the staff not encouraging people to pay it is just an observation i was wondering why. >> so from what i understand please corresponding i believe that is the volunteery contribution across the board for the programs i don't believe that the department has any we can suggest a documents but not in a position - >> i'm not talking about the department i'm talking about the agencies not encouraging - i don't know i'm just wondering because their. >> they're not supported to encourage but we've had

situation more than encouragement so we encourage them, no to the be overly encouraging that pressures people it is out there and we certainly hope that people donate to the extent but a suggested documents. >> the other question i have is well unfortunately linda is not here i just observed from the congregate meal no money funds for nutrition counseling and education but for the home delivered meals two line items. >> (inaudible). >> anybody know the answer. >> i don't. >> maybe linda can answer that next month. >> commissioners. >> denise chow on the aging

what is the question when a we don't allocate. >> it is include in the meals program. >> home delivered meals with the nutrition agency by two agencies we we require the education for the meals. >> well, i'm sure that is in the nutrition congregate meal budget for this is required i'm just wondering why not spelled out here this is the question that's all. >> we have ample funding as well. >> great. >> sorry about that this area plan budget is part of our budget so we get in the overlook budget. >> okay.

>> commissioner sims. >> some of this was a black box for me on the grid for the area planned budget. >> uh-huh. >> it looks like there are a number of sort of ups and downs in those areas one that is a small dollar amount but the sniff quality and accountability under the o buds man it is sensitive to the sniffs in san francisco i was wondering about rationals. >> so for the obama buds man the federal and state and each one as funding allocations it guide the way those funds are

distributed so specifically for the sniff - >> the very last one on the obama bud ombudsmen. >> the decrease in money is not a decrease in services this is as martha noted various source of income for the obama buds one oman it is funding that is corrected from the licensing and it maybe livelihood this is down because either less money was paid in or less beds in san francisco right now so it factors down the amount of money we need.

>> any other questions. >> okay any public comment? harpooning i'll call for the vote >> i. >> opposed? the i's have it. that motion carries. >> item c request and interrogation to are you new the grants with ed center for children and families for the vision of family caregiver for 2016 and jungle 2018 in the amount of one and $8,000 plus not to exceed one and 9 thousand plus can i have a motion it discuss. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> good morning, commissioners

and director analysis from the aging today, we seek our approval for the reauthorization for the family woods the 1915 (k) community first optionship program through the reauthorization of the older americans act the national family of support program was established that service called for two types of caregivers one of the types the family caregiver and the caregiver called kinship through the kinship supports grandparents and others usually those children live with their caregivers inform variety of reasons a difficult process for the caregiver that is at their time of their life to help their children raise their grandchildren and they're the seniors are taking care of or raising their grand their including the information

services, community education on caregiver and a variety of supportive services there are caregiver assessment services and caregiver support groups and caregiver training and case management services and respite care and finally i conducted a monitoring visit in january and found the program in full compliance and oakland since the last time thankful built an internal database to track their services one of the staff members built the program on her own time and on the weekends and i'll like to say they've got a more accurate compiling the services of providing and the fact that someone internally did that was amazing i want to give note is that we ask fewer approve for the kinship program

i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioners. >> commissioner loo. >> telling me what the the special event. >> a variety throughout the year one of the special events they would cack the grandchildren to a movie and then a special event for the senior grandparents so they have a support group which i've sown in action before it is great the folks know each other and support each other especially one program to get the kids ought to do activities for the kids so it gives respite to the grandparents to do a variety of activities brings fruits and vegas vegetables.

>> like an operation monday through friday. >> we have 52 weeks okay. it is 5 days so 360 days of operation not 244. >> 255. >> i see what you're saying oh. >> so i'm sorry ask your request again. >> 52 weeks in a requester 52 times 4 is 200 and 60 days and listed on mine. >> no, no, no my best guess that has to do with with holidays i guess maybe they've miss calculated i can follow-up and verify with the folks. >> commissioner sims. >> on page 46 it calls out in

a couple of plaza commitment to digital communication with a telephone coverage online and our meetings are in person can you elaborate a little bit on the underlying digital support this supports. >> it relatively new i didn't have a lot of detailed information i can get that but my understanding from the program director when i was out there some folks can't come in so they get the services through a digital. >> like a web x. >> i think that skype is another one. >> i was curious the age

demographics it encourage to see the grandparents taking advantage of those kinds of platforms and keep in mind that the grand is assessing those a transfer of learning from grandkids to grandparents. >> yeah. do you know the youngest and oldest grandparent age. >> whew i honestly do not know the - >> there's a some young people like in their 30s and 40s they maybe older grandparents and wondering if - >> right. >> how you there's a difference. >> yeah. yeah. >> in terms of needs.

>> right so what i've seen the 3 times i've gone on site and done the monitoring reviews i see active seniors who are engaged in the program i mean when i walk in on the group people turn around and smile additional happy regardless of their age their engaged in the services they're provided so - >> so you don't see gravrpts that may have been a disability and i can't comment. >> would that impose a different kind of services or require more respite. >> right. >> of younger entrant i'm looking for that. >> my guess it would that's why the services are varied and so many opportunities for kinds of services in the program you know there's the groups, there's

the classes and the case management component so all those ways in which the services are provided to the seniors depending upon the age or disability. >> but you don't have that hearing none, other questions. >> any public comment? any public comment? >> human right can i have a >> i. >> opposed? the i's have it. that motion carries d request an authorization to renew the contract agreement with- the associate for the block grant health and safety related time city mogul from july 2016 through june 2018 in the amount of $40,000 plus a 10 percent contingency for a total

contract not to exceed $44,000 can you have a motion to discuss. >> so moved. >> okay. >> good morning. i'm here seeking our approval for a 2 year renewal this company provides the hosting and management of our time study website and database times can be calibrate so i'll try to describe is it in three or four members it sentences that is a website utilized by dos and ph o on the dos side your adrc community services and case management staff participate in the studies 4 months per year during the time study they go in daily and log in their time breaking down into 4 categories at the end of the month our fiscal staff runs that

there formulas and has a report to leverage federal funding for reimbursement for the services we're providing through the programs we looked to generally incorporate and look to rely on this time study funding for 14 percent of our overall case management and 15 percent of community services and 19 permeation of our adrc funding the big picture the annual value is $20,000 in fiscal year 2014-2015 it helps us leverage over 9 had and $50,000 in federal funding so it's a pretty good deal that's all i have but happy expounded on the position. >> any questions. >> yes.

>> commissioner ow. >> you mentioned 4 area of study. >> yes. >> name those those four areas. >> the big one we want to solicit - isolate connecting people are medical decreasing or traipt a medical paper or application or help them figure out and the other categories are other non-health related tasks to their position supervision and time and sick time and vacation time. >> any other questions. >> any public comment? any public comment? at this time? hearing none, i'll call for the

>> i. >> opposed? the i's have it. that motion carries thank you. >> last item request an authorization to renew the contract with m v transportation for the provision of transportation services for the mentally disabled to 2018 and angle amount of 60 thousand plus 10 percent contingency for a total not to exceed 66 thousands can i have a motion to discuss. >> so moved and second. >> good morning commissioner president james and commissioners i'm mary ann on behalf of the public conservator this is a contract to bring the clients out of county back to stock that o san francisco for hearing dates and as we've discussed earlier

housing is limited in san francisco most of our clients in the cover for office are out of county we need transportation to bring them back for court hearings. >> the 60 thousand contract we're asking for an extension of two years. >> okay any questions coming from the - any questions. >> approximately, how many clients i know you probable have this you planning to serve. >> in - we serve about 8 hundred. >> 8 hundred and that are out of. >> total. >> oh, it's quite a bit, quite a few of the folks. >> any other questions.

>> any comments from the public any questions from the public? commissioner ow >> i do have a question you said 8 hundred of fellows take care of those people 8 hundred is not residing in san francisco. >> oh, no. >> that's the total number. >> that's total number; right? so how many are out of town. >> about half-and-half i think at any give time. >> we don't have that many folks to take care of our own people. >> a small town geographically and a lot of the clients are in psychiatric facilities. >> any other questions. >> hearing none, i'll call for the vote

- >>. he's always any public comment hearing none, call for the vote >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? the i's have it. that motion carries now announcements? any announcements hearing none, any. . hearing none, can i have a motion to adjourn >> so moved. >> there is a motion and a second that we adjourn the meeting

>> this is the historic society commission for wednesday, june 1. please, sounds your mobile devices. when speaking before the commission if you care to state your name for the record and i will take will call at this time. >>[call of the roll] >> clerk: thank you commissioners. first on your agenda is general public comments. at this time members of the public address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up for up to 3 min. i've no speak of card

>> president wolfram: does any member of the public wish to make general public, and if so please come forward? >> testifier: i like to see the commission's advice on historic preservation issue. i'm doing some research on >> clerk: can you these speak into the microphone? >> testifier: i'm doing historic preservation research on this building in north beach. try put it on the overhead?'s >> president wolfram: yes >> clerk >> testifier: the time i have left, [inaudible] the factory

which was built in 1946-1947 by san francisco architect actually a native of commerce oh higher. got his degree in washington state and started practicing in 1929 was martin j rest. the present st. cecilia church are building [inaudible]. i think it's the building has very high potential for being on the registry of landmarks in san francisco and the present owner, marlene-daughter of fred, who founded the company built the building is still alive. it's going to a bone of contention for almost its entire life into it went up in operation of manufacturing a see-two zone but it was declared all the legal sausage factory from the time it started running in 1940. it goes down finally in 1981. so

there's been some public effort in the 80s, 81, 83 to great a special use zone within the area which is this building is actually it's directly behind the st. francis trying. so come the layout. it's right in that property from vallejo and greenstreet at 535. they bought the property from archbishop mitty as the sole corporation for the archdiocese of san francisco. the archdiocese down in palo alto and actually menlo park is doing some research for me from the die size. i look i guess and seek the commission said by someone, [inaudible] and let her know what i'm doing , but also your advice i think in bringing to the attention of the supervisors and also this commission should be for further going through research. that's all accurate >> president wolfram: thanks.

we don't give advice at this hyatt hearing but you can contact the planning presentations up on the website. any other member of the public wish to make public on? seeing none, and hewitt will close general public, good >> clerk: item 1 directors announcements. >> i have nothing commissioners >> clerk: items to the mission matters >> staff: normal formal learning commission report that i to items to share with you. one is, as you are aware, the government oversight, government audit site and met after last hearing to discuss the legacy business registry program. at that hearing, the you commissioner timothy was present and she may have some comments regarding the outcome of that meeting. what we heard

is that the committee has asked for an update on the program at its hearing tomorrow as well. we been in contact with regina, from the office of small business. she has no stated to me that she has seven complete applications that she will forward to us on monday. which is june 6. if she were to transmit those applications we would have to hear them at your july 6 hearing or, which because it's close to the july 4 all day, maybe cancels.. it would give her a little more time to transmit those applications if we postpone that a little bit, and schedules that hearing for the july 20 hearing. but that is at your discretion. maybe

something you want to take up today. the second item is just a quick report about the departments pending budget. as you recall, the commission-this commission added one additional fte to support the legacy business registry and all of the departments ask for the preservation programming including the additional fte have remained in the mayor's budget. so, we will keep you posted as that moves through the board of supervisors and discussions there. but it looks like everything is in place for the next fiscal year. that concludes my comments. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. any comments or questions? moving on speaker commissioners that a place is on item 3. when the commission matters is in support and announcements >> president wolfram: no report or announcements >> clerk: item 4, consideration of adoption 4 min.

for may 18 aoc meeting >> president wolfram: is any member of the public to comment on the draft meeting minutes of may 18 the architectural review committee and the regular hpc hearing? seeing none, and hearing none, we will close public comment. why have a motion to approve the minutes? >> moved and seconded. speaker than to adopt the minutes, with a may 18 architectural review committee hearing and the regular hearing, so moved commissioners that matt motion passes unanimously 7-0. that places us on item 5 commission comments and questions. >> president wolfram: commissioner matsuda >> commissioner matsuda: i comments will be brief. i just want report to the commission that i did attend last week's hearing and all the supervisors

who were present were very appreciative of the commission and are just as anxious to see this program move forward as we are. >> president fong: thank you. commissioner pearlman >> commissioner pearlman: last night i got to go through the-building and if you have not seen it they did a beautiful job in the restoration and just really spectacular so it's on judah near ninth avenue so take a look. i am happy to announce that the first big event at hibernia bank with the rally for hillary clinton last week. i was there and was very amazing to be in that room with hundreds and hundreds of people , nfl like it was the 1940s and harry truman was cannot come up on the stage because of all the flags and banners and everything. anyway was very excited. thank you. >> president wolfram: great, thank you. do we have the topic

of the meeting on july 6 two agreement out? >> clerk: this would be the appropriate time >> president wolfram: the only item on the agenda is the possibility that we may receive this legacy business packet. though that's not been confirmed. building there any other agenda items confirm that hearing. is that true? >> clerk: the only other item i see is the heritage conservation [inaudible]. >> president wolfram: that's in an informational review and comment >> clerk: it's just the beginning of the historic preservation element of the general plan before so i'm inclined to oppose we cancel the july 6 hearing. do we need to be that you should officially remove that from your hearing scheduled on >> president wolfram: i need a motion to remove that >> clerk: yes steve from >> clerk: then, to cancel july 6 hearing on your hearing

schedule, so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> president wolfram: commissioner hyland >> commissioner hyland: i have a disclosure and agenda item 6. ingleside presbyterian church. this is the second time it's come before us and less time i became aware during a presentation that architectural resources group,, my previous employer, and company have done a report for a gin at the time i do not understand what the extent of that was but i checked with the city attorney and that it's a pro bono evaluation, the conservation

issues around the murals. the contact is done and closed, so there's no need for me to recuse myself. i just want to clarify that. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> clerk: it is nothing further we can move onto your regular counter for item 6. case number 2015 007219 third, 1345 ocean ave. the landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon commission. shannon ferguson department of staff on behalf of susan parks. i'm here today present departments recommendation regarding limit participation of ingleside presbyterian church in its interior collage mural an artist's environment entitled the great cloud of witnesses. located at 1345 ocean ave., in the ingleside neighborhood. the building is added to the landmark designation work in inmate 2013 #staff at the heritage pro bono architectural historic officials and pro bono architectural conservatives arg

began working on the project. the building is a committee for landmark status both for its architectural and artistic association. first, the church itself is architecturally significant work of master architect jesse leonard. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the neoclassical style and a unique example of neoclassical ecclesiastical architecture in the city. architect justin leonard was well known locally for his parts as chosen as the george's artistic today the building is one of limits you extend religious structure. secondly, the church is artistically significant parts interior mural collage. the great cloud of witnesses. begin by robin gordon in 1980 a big contributions to the study of american folk art. african-american mural, the artist environment and san francisco african-american history. the great cloud of witnesses composition size

location and technique used to make it unique. the overall arrangement across multiple rooms and floors the extensive size encompasses most of the churches interior and the distinctive choice of media and collage technique is unparalleled on this scale. they work in progress since 1980, the great cloud of witnesses is a rare tribute and the largest most imaginatively executed folk artist environment dedicated to religion, culture, african-american history and role models in the country. the interior characteristic features include rooms, volume and was, and staircases that were historically accessible to the public such as the lobby jim & georgia the collage mural is also considered [inaudible]is that rev. gordon has determined to be complete including all components of the mural across all services in the lobby, the jim, the obama technology center, the michael jackson, the willie brown and the legacy room. for the

ordinance, "and is allowed to keep working on other rooms that not been determined complete and is a manner that is been working with that entitlement. it also states any future conservation or stabilization effort should be guided by the conditions effectively thereby arg in the california are preservation act subject to the consent of the artist rev. gordon. there's no nonpublic opposition to the landmark designation and the church's support of the designation. commissioners wolfram and hyland visited the site this morning i was met with rev. gordon and without mural work. yvonne leaves the building needs: status is wanted. donna harman recommends atc resonates designation to the board of supervisors this compose my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. the questions, commissioners? we will now take public comment on this item. remember the public was to comment on this and not

designation? please come forward. >> testifier: i'm rolling gordon pastor of the church could oh i think the commissioners for coming out to see firsthand what is unfolding at angles side, that the community is very excited about and i really felt honored today to have you present. i want to say thank you. the wolfram thank you very much for it was an honor to be there. i never any other member of the item was to public ones item? hearing none, and seeing none, will will close public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> i move we approve this. >> second. >> president wolfram: >> clerk: thank you commissioners. there's a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval. on a motion, so moved

commissioners. the motion passes unanimously. commissioners that are places on items seven for december 2015 -007181, 140 maiden ln. this is also a landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon commissioners. shannon ferguson department staff. i'm here today to present their parts trepidation regarding a mimics to the landmark designation for 140 maiden ln. historically known as the gift shop located in the conservation district. 140 maiden was designated as landmark 72 and 1975. at the all-time leader in your features of the: with designated such as a blank wall

of brick and romanesque arch. the internal circular structure is equally as significant as the exterior and as a shop it was historically public good accessible. complete level for the guggenheim museum 140 maiden ln. is the first building to be constructed oozing what frank wainwright's favorite spectral shape the spiral which dominated his work out of finally. frank wainwright is by far the most well known and influenced american art that although they produce several designs further buildings in san francisco, the bc mortgage shop is the only one realize. it is a significant and rare modern building designed by the master architect. the planning department has shared the designation report with property owners and is received one letter of support from the community member supervisor peskin is also in support of the landmark designation. commissioners wolfram and hyland visited the site this market during the site commissioners noted original light fixtures and [inaudible].

the department believes the building meets the stylish eligibility requirements and does designation is wanted without harman recommends a mimics to the designation to the board of supervisors this concludes my presentation good i'm happy to answer questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. any questions for ms. ferguson? i have a question about the light fixtures in the pneumatic two-tiered that's not currently >> staff: that's not currently listed in the designation. we do not discuss it this morning during the site visit. distort shows that the light fixtures may indeed be historic get people from these are the ones in the ceiling that are kind of what shape would you call that, spherical? actually the first floor. the upper-level lights are part of the [inaudible]. thank you. does any member of the public wish to comment on this item? please come forward. seeing none, anyone will close public comment and

bring back to the commission. commissioners, comment? other comments? i'm sorry. okay. i apologize. we will reopen public comment. the 3 min. >> testifier: good afternoon on sharon slater in the senior vice president of asset management for downtown properties represent the owner of 140 maiden ln. we had a great site visit this morning and it was really good for me to know now that we are really on the same page as far as the preservation of the building. the concerns that you've expressed the same ones that we have, so that is great. my concern is that we been having some trouble with the leasing of the building. our pool of prospective tenants is fairly narrow because were little picky about who we want to go into. not everybody appreciates the history of the building. we've had some problems with

deals dropping out because they're concerned about the process of getting approvals for any alterations they would like to make. granted, not able to make any alterations to the elements we talked about, but just the process of getting plans approved even within that guideline is difficult. so, we talked about potentially meeting so we can talk about specifics of what the guidelines should be for the things that would be preapproved, like the color palettes for paint and that sort of thing. we what we saw when we have a pop-up was [inaudible] is my new pff-it was my futile beautiful but the activation of the building was fantastic to see it so vibrant and full of people. we have so many request for people to visit the building. so, i would

like to see it activated permanently as soon as possible. so i am hoping that you can help me smooth the way on this process so that's not a deterrent to getting the right kind of tenants we all want. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you very much. any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comments. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck:. those comments, have any influence on the staff recommendation, but my basic idea here is this is another remarkable building for us to endorse landmark use. so i would move to approve staff >> president wolfram: i like classic question of sector am wondering a subconscious made, whether we could administer this that would allow us to delegate to have some of the

interior work, or a set of guidelines that you could meet with the property owner to discuss so they don't have to come back to the commission for doing painting or more minor work within the interior. is that something that could be included in this or how would we do with this? i do know the ministry to see a vase onset of her injury when so much. >> staff: commissioners, the-you are certainly if you're inclined to do so you could amend this ordinance to clarify what could be delegated to staff, but article 10 in article 11 already do provide a mechanism for you to delegate to us at any time. so, if we were not to take up now, after meeting with the representatives of the building and having a better understanding of what types of scopes of work they're interested in expediting, we could then come back to you at a future date with those and

then at that time you could consider delegating them to us. you don't necessarily have to do as part of the delegation agreement were part of this ordinance could you can do it anytime >> president wolfram: so this be approved by the order supervisors and mayor and so at later time when you meet with the property owner we could talk about what items could be delegated. i would like to be a supple to the owner as possible. >> staff: after the meeting we would then have a better understanding of exactly what we could delegate. >> president wolfram: okay get i think that makes sense. >> i moved to approve staff recommendations before >> moved and seconded. >> president wolfram: do it that i can do is a discussion about adding the light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. which i would recommend adding with the additional the ground floor and light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. >> where is the pneumatic tube and what was it for? be wolfram it was for public processing orders and money. >> do some the sales desk area

down? >> president wolfram: yes. maybe the pneumatic tube on those second ground floor not necessarily the basement location. does that make sense? >> commissioner johnck: absolutely. >> president wolfram: i think we have a motion and a second. >> clerk: very good good on a motion to adopt the recommendations for approval to the board of supervisors, as amended to include the oval like pictures on the ground floor and pneumatic tube at the ground and second levels, so moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners places on item 8. december 2014-001711.. the wireless facility planning code did this is a amendment. >> staff: thank you. omar mastery on behalf of the san francisco planning department. the best before you as an item

to request changes in san francisco planning code recommendations to the board of supervisors. as it relates to wireless talk mitigation services facility. otherwise known as referred to commonly as cell towers and cell antennas. within this request would be a more brought change to article 10 and 11 of the planning code. which do with certain entitlements first preservation applications peer if sfgtv could pull up the slideshow, please? so, one of the primary changes would clarify the staff can render a decision which includes approval or denial, of certain historic preservation applications. those would include the mistreated certificate of appropriateness, reminder permit to alter. currently, for example, article 10 of the planning code indicates that staff can it go. by this historic preservation commission, that can choose approve a application but

[inaudible] the reason this is important is because a new state law took effect in january 2016. over two initially is a be-57. basically said for wireless facility application comes in for any city or county in california, the city does not make a decision in so many days of application being complete then it is automatically approved or deemed granted. the city would have to go to court in order to try to stop that approval from taking effect. so, in this example, one of our concerns would be the care were to submit an application for wireless facility downtown and committed building permit application and application for the mistreated certificate of appropriateness is an article can map them of tradition. one

of the concerns would be a scenario where the applicant has an application complete. the shot clock the time limit within 90 days or 150 days, is ticking and counts against the city the carrier has not provided design that looks like it complies or appears to comply with the security of interior standards for treatment for historic properties or other local boulders were other guidelines with respect to historic preservation concerns. in that scenario, the staff were inclined to try to deny this facility before the automatic approval took effect, one of the challenges we face is that we didn't initially required notification labels for owners and occupants within 70 feet. back when the application was initially submitted. so the shortest demo, if you will, to get a project to hearing for denial if the carrier is not willing to make those changes in order to avoid an automatic approval. for the sake of clarity and consistency across article 10 and 11, this change would apply to all scopes of work that are delegated by this story preservation commission to departments that. so, it would include things like signage, including signage on the screen that has tenants

on-site. would include roof deck as it currently does. historic alterations, both wireless facilities on rooftops as well as within the public right-of-way. since the antenna attached. by polls and transit polls and utility poles we now see in san francisco. another change would not be maybe a notable interest to the commission, but it would allow screening such as fake scrabble with the current acception from-it's from steel towers and antennas and women associate with wireless facility. were this would be of assistance as we may see as an example larger building and 6-7 stories where it exceeds the 40 foot height limit for instance down to much of the city. that building may be less intrusive in terms of the overall size of the facility being scale and context appropriate respect to the building but because of the

current height limitations for screening elements, the carrier may not be able to pursue that cyprus the screen is used to stop the equipment the antennas and cabling and other appurtenances would not be an option available under the plan current planning code rules. so the ability to add screen above limits consistent with exception currently for on-screen facilities would allow staff to work with carriers and the community to find less intrusive locations especially from a scale and context perspective. however, code amendment this clip by staff would still be able to review projects with respect to design review, shed of you and city parks and prisons historic preservation review. many limits imposed by the planning commission is so, this example at the bottom of the photo, the proposed simulation, chosen design a potentially historic resource we would not consider appropriate and still maintain the ability to request that the

care modified or design more appropriate for the building of the neighborhood. ms. just to wrap up, the one which provides you in the planning commission or start commission back it was on son. you provided a signed version of that. the planning commission unanimously recommended initiation of the amendment of march 17 and the scheduled adoption hearing for june 16 or any time afterwards and supervisor avalos is also sponsored the proposed amendment. with that, i'll post my presentation and be happy to answer questions. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. mr. find >> staff: just a follow-up on mr. mastery's comments, i just want to provide a little more clarity on what existing in the code. in terms of your process. and what this change really means for article 10 and 11. essentially, the code in terms of delegation is silent on whether or not we can disapprove

entitlements and administrative entitlement. with this does it just clarifies that. so, in the case of any member of the public were this commission appealing or asking are we filing a request for hearing, all of those mechanisms still stay in place. so, as you recall, i think in the sims 2009, we've had to request for hearings. that would still be the process if the wireless carrier were neighbor felt that we approved or disapproved something in error. they could still petition this commission, or any of the members of this commission could do the same and we would schedule it at the next hearing. so, really, again, all this is doing is allowing us to disapproved something as long as you've delegated it to staff. because it's related specifically-but changes were brought upon

because of this new wireless amendment, we felt though it was more responsible to broaden that still wasn't that we were just disapproving or approving wireless facilities, that we are actually using the same process for all items delegated to us. but again, if you need further clarification on that we can always walk through the code sections as well. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: did you open public hearing >> president wolfram: we've not done public commented yet. >> commissioner johnck: okay can i just i'm just curious and maybe can answer more discussion after public comment, but i'm trying to understand the context of this because i've been seeing the mbta's come through in a bit looking at them. say what are the implications for historic preservation because sin

there's lots. there's a lot of these. it's a documented many years ago when al gore had wire american we were laying fiber optic cable all over the phrase is using this is phase 2 these kinds of wireless enhancements structures so to speak. i am just like your comments about -i've not seen anything that would be particularly obtrusive, knowing what the purpose of these are. and that kind of thing. although, i be interested to see if you need further scrutiny on these or if there's not too much-not that many issues with these? do you have enough leeway to approve things as you been doing? or do you need to mark? >> staff: under the current process, yes. i would just add the czar and omar can chime in

on this as well. these are very time-consuming applications. there's a lot of back-and-forth that has to occur designwise between the wireless carriers and staff. they are generally open to that conversation, but it takes a number of rounds of revisions to get to a point where we feel that it doesn't sort of overwhelmed the roofline or different since at&t was going to install something, then verizon and t-mobile don't come and try to do the same thing and then we have an antenna farm on the roof. so, because of that-because there is a diminished sort of mechanism to work with because of this new clock, we felt it was necessary just as a safeguard measure to have this option to deny something. it's purely the carriers in action on responding to us that could require us to approve it. that was when of our main concerns.

>> staff: if i may clarify, the federal and state law are required it has to approve facilities necessarily could push us to make a decision faster. the process of the aco will is a definite advantage for the individual specially the sequencer project inevitable for article 10 and 11 entitlement as was the planning commission entitlement to those constrained time frames within 90 days for the location can be a real challenge. with the victory are seeing for the [inaudible] are mostly modifications. they're mostly dismisses where carrier has antennas 10 years further swapping out and we had varying degrees of success. getting those antennas off the primary side where they should not have been approved using it when we do not knows as much. it's a constant sort of discussion with both the carriers trying to

move equipment, mood facilities with the property owners. the sometime questioned why the changes occurring. this often pieces where a staff were talking to the property owner st. rashly asking for this change because it week is beneficial to the neighborhood and building as well as in terms of enhancing its own. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: to question. when we have the hansen street probably two years ago and we completely asked for redesign our calls. they look great. did that come because of the historic district or why? adjusting market st., van, right because i can to >> testifier: that was a first for a small. city-owned before that we've only seen wireless facilities on with utility poles the city does not open.

those are the most controversial often big and bulky. reddit the bedroom items. we seen a lot more support, if you will, with respect to small styles that can be 40. so verizon came forward the design four 320 small cells initially in soma northeast of the city to attach two small boxes an antenna. we got to design many neighbors about reset it looks pretty darn good it's a fairly unintrusive, and susan were now seen t-mobile, copying our design. seeing att and looking possibly going, that same path and we think it's a good sort of starting point. >> commissioner hasz: all that stuff comes up under this 98, and? >> testifier: for brand-new site it's 150 days. however, the city owns the assets, likely on the parties actually the sole site is going on, we own the steel plate welcome

those do not apply because a property owner we have more discretion we can say that, but start by because we be acting as in her capacity as a property owner of the permitting agency. we face a real challenge to be the new site is on private property. the code location is at 90 days on private property in the antennas attached to the existing wooden poles on by say pacific gas & electric. >> commissioner hasz: think the clarifying. that helps out. by second question would oh my second question my comments and would be ongoing about height limit for screening. i think it's kind of a tricky thing. and to meet you must be-i get worried saying [inaudible] to me that season on a restriction so currently on on-screen antennas is very certain height allowed to go? is a case-by-case basis? >> testifier: there's no either mr. unscreened antennas and towers. rather approved unscreened 10 is and towers for cell phones first. they generally don't need to be that high. >> commissioner hasz: i would

just love to see some kind of limiting language. on height. >> staff: minors in that provision is that was applied to situations where the building is already overnight limit? speeds >> testifier: it be broad-based. imbued reviewed by exceeding a height. for example in the bayview if the carrier came forward and want to put up fake water tower on the site would normally be-if on a rooftop permitted because it's 25 feet above the height limit but the ground for the fake water tower could automatically require planning commission reviewed and will be subject to any limitations posed by the planning commission specified limit included within the scope of the application. >> commissioner hasz: on top mess of that, under this change would not go to any commission, right? that's what were talking about. doing it so you can take your this in-house.

so, to me am happy to give that approval, but i'm really not-i'm leery of giving anything without limiting that height limit. >> testifier: is a qualified. in any zoning district that's not cdm or conduct searches in cedar six, r districts, all they recorded the planning commission and they have. so we check there if you appeared in the downtown, for instance without via any public review normally, if you can exceed more than 25 feet above the roof height you're already can be taken to require planning commission conditional use authorization and so there is sort of >> i've seen a couple of these installations downtown on rooftops and only 15 feet tall maximum. you adjusting to me that should be a number that should be in the. >> i'm wondering if we could

get this works or not you let me know, god limitations on the roof you can do certain things about the height limit and the code right now like elevator penthouses and stare penthouses and there are limitations. on how much of the roof they can cover and how high those can be. it seems like that would be a logical we could use those same limits. i don't know if that works, omar? >> testifier: that's what we are currently good reason since it is a template height exception for pipes we've applied to determination by the zone administrator. for fake elevator and house is only 16 foot height limit if you're in a sony district that's come i'm sorry, a high distance over 65 feet. so that 16 foot exception reply as well for something that makes a fake 0v penthouse. which generally gives the challenge though. it can mimic in elevator penthouses give you near the edge of the roof generally. doesn't look like it

belongs there. so you put the elevator penthouses in the middle of the roof and you have 16 foot to work with, it's only 16 feet above the height limit, the building rac site limit you don't have as much to work with. so that site not mean up the bible and we have less ability to encourage the carrier to move further back onto the-further back away from the primary façade. >> commissioner hasz: because i help with these regulations the signal goes out and a certain dive pattern just can't make it over the building down onto the street. >> testifier: to restate the carriers are tied up push to as close as the roof is possible. this of the panel's not for every type of wireless disorder that odyssey this most challenging ubiquitous facility insulation. so the comp demise has been get a one-to-one setback. for every foot of height above the parapet of the roofline, i move the antenna and screening back 1 foot away from the façade so doesn't

appear to impose and dominate the roof line. >> president wolfram: commissioner bauman >> commissioner pearlman: it seems to me the staff in general is fairly conservative about anything that isn't specifically in the code so things like not having a limit. i would trust the staff were specimen comes to historic buildings to be quite certain sect about something being 30 feet up and very visible, and would either deny or would then have a process through as mr. mastery said the things that would need to go to the planning commission or come here. so, i don't have that particular fear that something is going to sneak through that would be so obtrusive.. it seems that the staff would catch something like that quite quickly. and would work with the carrier to deal with it. speed >> president wolfram: commissioner hasz

>> commissioner hasz: in hearing talking about once one that starts making sense that it's a limiting factor. that sounds good. if that's not in their written, maybe it should be. maybe i guide you been using but maybe that should be here starbase standard. 121. >> president wolfram: >> staff: at this time with a public comments. does any member of the public was to make comment on this item we pick if so, these come forward. you will have 3 min. >> testifier: my name is another james. it sounds like something that i am having a problem with my community. i'm not sure why but anyway, ipg and he has a hole in my backyard in the back of our property, and always telecommunication

wires are going to that. but, at the same time, since they put it in they say they have a light easement to the property. but, cars is the easement to my neighbor in that. but now cars are wider and bigger there's only 15 inches so nobody can get through that-descartes or station wagon can't get through that and i asked them, with a move the poll they said they have a right to be there, but instead of them going back to her property, they stopped in front of my property and blocked my garage. so i'm just saying, this can be a problem and whether, like you limit it to so many years, i think it's a good idea to take a new look at that but, right now, i don't know what this is related to were not but lily is a problem

because there's seven houses that are connected to that poll with electricity, as well as the wiring for their telecommunication and what have you. so, anyway, it does have an effect. the other thing i want to say, thank you for voting for rev. gordon because it is my community and we have use that and i thank you very much. thank. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public was to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comment and bring it back to the commission did commissioners hamilton asked to adopt a resolution recommending approval. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: i do want to move to approve that last comment, designer; and, but for the decision coming out currently from our department just looking forward 10 years

that we have some standards. the only reason i bring that up and kept bringing it up. but otherwise, yes, i moved to approve >> president wolfram: stirfried >> staff: to appoint accreditation based on commissioner hasz is common. with a desire to include women that resolution because remember, this is review and comment zero comments we forwarded to the planning commission and the board of supervisors. the got something in there at all lines up the hpc desires some language that talks about a limiting factor, whether a not to exceed, or some other existing policy that the department uses just demonstrating that these should not be the carriers should not have unlimited access to height. >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: i was also interested in this issue of screening and exceeding height limits the kind of thing. so i would be interested in that to suggest that the code be amended to include a

basic standard. such as we talked about. >> president wolfram: commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: >> testifier: 121 sounds good to me. she will give a comment on this >> testifier: each of the standards runs of two different technologies. for instance if we make a broad-based exemption to include wireless than total, there's some wireless facilities that are simply antenna the size of the with of my pinky. he may not have any interest for practical day by day standpoint of limiting the height of that within 10 in the middle-of-the-road in which i do limit based on these different metrics, there's going to be a larger exceptions will be going challenge in order to review. so if i could offer i think the 25 foot height

sort of trigger for those providers leverage in terms of same to the carrier, if you go that high, you have to go back for the planning commission and eight limitations imposed by them. >> commissioner hasz: i'm sorry but 25 is so high at the age of any building. right? i mean were talking 16 foot from elevator penthouse. that's never the edge of the building like we were saying. it's just, i just will, were not doing this commonly. i just worry about it being read between the lines in the city getting sued by some carrier saying i want 25. he did i get that and you know what i mean? be bumped heads with them this commission on the sanford street now and again on the market street now and they were not as bendable is your experiencing. at the commission level. so i can imagine sometimes it's a fight. i just

look, we push backs up all the time that this commission but it's only a store building but to me every building should not have stopped jammed up to the front of it. we also don't have a with. find them okay maybe we have 16 foot height but we make the width of the whole building. it just feels a little loose. >> testifier: if i could clarify, the intent is having basic language is also cover things that ought to be on rooftops. for instance, without carrier proposes a tree at a along the freeway on the 280? get to consider the structure that's a height limitations were part one supported by clocktower that also has cell antennas in there. so we try to create a simple baseline recognizing it preserves our ability to say no. the other item i would point out, there often are instances among site visitors were up there on the

rooftops with engineers and rosina try mine were kerry is not going top of the roof try to get ui because what happens they start to interfere with own network chemistry. they want to contain the signal within a lower area. so not seen carrier summary try to get more height because that defeats the purpose of what they're trying to accomplish when it comes to the cell antennas specifically. >> president wolfram: i think what you are saying is that you don't want to codify the one-to-one because there's a lot of extenuating circumstances and unattended consequently the way to incorporate into the guidelines as opposed to the legislation? >> testifier: we can cut a fight into the guidelines. we provided >> president wolfram: if it's in the code then- >> commissioner hasz: i get you. just something in there. probably the with like no more than 25% of the width of the building or something. you know?

>> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: no, i'm done but i agree with putting in the guidelines. i hear what you're saying. >> testifier: i would agree the guidelines would be the appropriate place to put that in. >> president wolfram: okay so i moved to approve the changes. the set was that san francisco san francisco you have a conversation with a woman who spoke earlier? >> clerk: if there's nothing further there's a motion seconded to adopt the recommendation for approval and the motion, so moves commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. that concludes our hearing today. >> president wolfram: the hearing is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment]

>>day, june 2, thursday, june 2, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner antonini commissioner hillis and commissioner wu we do expect commissioner vice president richards, commissioner johnson and commissioner moore to arrive shortly commissioners, the first item on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance item