welcome. go ahead and start the historic preservation meeting. remote hearings require your attention. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive public comment for each item oven today's agenda. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling (415) 655-0001. and entering access code 24976055777. when we reach the item you're

interested in speaking to, please press star three to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to 30 seconds and when you hear a chime, your time is almost up. best practices are to call from a quiet location speak clearly and slowly. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call]

sblgt thank you commissioners. 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 for up to three minutes. again, you need to press star three to be added to the queue and when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: eileen vogan. speak is working with parkside heritage on a number of projects. the clubhouse has come before the commission. the park side library will come before the commission this spring. another project is the

terraville police station. it was built in 1924 and was designed by martin wrist. it was completely restored and renovated in 1996, however, the renovation did not include seismic retro fitting. as part of 2020 earth quake safety and emergency response bond also known as easer. the subject in the wall street journal mansion section last year, there was an article titled with the headline everything old is new again. the headline is for over a decade, homeowners were heavily reworking san francisco story victorians to fit a highly moderate aesthetic. now young buyers are embracing

these century old, how covid made these homes hot. and i quote, san francisco victorians are making a comeback. for over a decade, young homeowners fuelled by tech hundred and the dominance of moerndz architecture were heavily reworking the city's cache of historic properties. their architectural details removed to make way for precise corners. their woodwork painted bright light and interiors brushed and washed in shades of gray. the tide is finally starting to turn. a growing number of young residents of san francisco are choosing to purchase and restore historic properties, in particular victorians so that they are synonymous with the

city. thank you. >> secretary: okay. thank you. last call for general public comment. again, you need to press star 3. seeing no additional requests to speak. general public comment is closed. and we can move on to department matters. are there any department announcements? >> hi, jonas. deputy director of department planning. commissioners. happy new year. we hope you've had a great start. we don't have any major announcements. i do want to recognize one of our long-time preservation staff who will be departing us on friday. so stephanie cisneros will be leaving us for a private firm. we want to thank her for all of

her years of service. she has been a shepherd to the southwest quadrant for the last couple of years and also been a valued member of our ceqa team and we wish her the best. >> secretary: thank you. indeed. commission matters, item two, president's report and announcements. >> president: i don't have any announcements at this point. thank you. >> secretary: very good. item three, consideration of adoption draft minutes for december 1st, 2021. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes from december 1st, 2021. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public. public comment on this item is closed and it is now before you, commissioners. >> commissioner: motion approved. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes, [roll call]

so moved, commissioners. that places us on item four, commission comments and questions. >> i'd like to ask the commission to consider establishing a date for our election of officers. i don't know if we've possibly considered that for our next h.p.c. meeting on the 19th. >> secretary: very good. >> i think that's a good idea. >> secretary: would someone make the motion as the chair cannot. >> i move that we consider election of officer its at our

next meeting. >> secretary: do i hear a second? >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you. on that motion then to add the election of officers to your january 19th hearing agenda, [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item five. oh, i'm sorry. were there any other comments or questions from members of the commission? if there are none, then we can move on to item five. for case number 2021-009976crv. again, commissioners, this is

to allow us to continue meeting remotely through the month of january and, again, we need to take this up every 30 days. i do believe i forwarded the e-mail from the mayor's office and the city administrative office indicating that we may begin reconvening in city hall, possibly as soon as our first hearing in march. so there does appear to be some light at the end of the tunnel, maybe. we'll see. for now, we do need you to adopt this resolution. >> commissioner: does that mean you need a motion? >> secretary: indeed, i do. >> commissioner: all right. i move to adopt the resolution. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the resolution to allow us to continue meeting remotely, [roll call]

so moved. that places us on item six for case 2021-012352crv for your rules and regulations. commissioners, i will quickly try to share my screen so that you can -- well, i don't know why it's not letting me do this now. of course not. well, commissioners, to you the amendment proposed is simply to incorporate the racial and

social equity of the component to your rules and regulations and i will simply read that into the record. adding section two under article one, that the san francisco historic preservation commission acknowledges the diverse population of the city and county of san francisco and reaffirms its commitment to racial and social equity. the commission recommends that the mayor nominate and the board of supervisors affirm members of the commission that represent this diversity. the commission directs the planning department to ensure the diverse voices of san francisco are given the opportunity to be heard and represented with reasonable accommodations at all public meetings of the commission. and this is really to satisfy phase one of the racial and social equity plan that came before you a couple years ago now as well as some minor text and grammatical errors throughout but that is the

substantive amendments to your rules and regulations. members of the public, if you would like to address the commission on their proposed amendments to the rules and regulations, you need to press star 3. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, commissioners, public comment on your rules and regulations is closed and they are now before you. >> commissioner: i'll move that we adopt the change and rules proposed. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to adopt the amendments proposed for the rules and regulations, [roll call] thank you, commissioners. so moved.

and now we can go -- continue to your continuance calendar for item seven. case number 2020-006466coa for the property of 621 waller street. this is a certificate of appropriateness and it is proposed for continuance to february 16th, 2022. commissioner wright, i believe you are requesting to be recused. >> commissioner: yes, that's correct. >> secretary: on this matter. i will remind you and the other commissioners for any recusal of any item that you are present at the hearing or absent from the hearing, you need to file the form stating why with the city ethics commission. commissioner wright, you are hear by recused and if you would just turn off your video and mute your microphone, you can rejoin us as soon as we take this vote, as soon as we

get a motion. >> commissioner: i move that commissioner wright be recused. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: sure. on the motion to recuse commissioner wright, [roll call] thank you. you are officially now recused, commissioner wright. on the matter of continuance. >> commissioner: motion to approve the continuance. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to continue item six as proposed, [roll call]

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6-0. commissioner wright, you may rejoin us for the next item. previously listed as a consent calendar item, but we are pulling it off of consent to submit some amendments to you. so this matter will be heard. item eight, case number 2021-009109coa, 4610 2nd street. i understand commissioner matsuda, you need to be recused. >> commissioner: that's right. my firm is related to this project. >> commissioner: move to recuse. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to recuse commissioner nageswaran, [roll call]

so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and you are hereby recused. >> do we need for anything after this? >> secretary: well, we don't have anything after this. >> commissioner: okay. just wanted to make sure. >> secretary: okay. see you soon. monica, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. thank you, jonas. the application before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 461 2nd street also known as the clock tower building. a contributor to the south end landmark district located under article 10 of the planning district and zoning district.

the building was constructed in 1907 for the smidt graph company. founded by mack smidt, it was one of the largest print companies on the west coast. in 1920, the prominent clock tower was added to the existing buildings and an addition was constructed in 1938. the building's original ornamentation was removed and all of the brick facade was covered with smooth stucco in the 1960s. an existed metal snap-on baton roofing system with a new painting metal snap-on painted roofing system. which will match in terms of material and color. the replacement panels will be

smaller resulting in an altered appearance. staff is allowed to approve a certificate of appropriateness for replacing roofing materials. when those. the project also includes eight windows on the south side of the building. described as three over three ask in fact the proposal would replace existing two over two aluminum windows in kind with new two over two aluminum windows in the existing window openings. department staff has provided a corrected project plan early this morning. if the project is approveded as proposed today, staff will revise the staff report provided in your packets to

provide the scope of work. we have not received anything in regards to. outlined in article 10 of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. based on the analysis in the case report, staff therefore recommends approval with the following conditions. first, prior to planning department approval of the site permit, the project sponsor shall provide shop drawings for project elements including but not limited to the windows and roofing system for review and approval to the department preservation staff. second, as part of the future review of the building permit by the department of building inspection or any other city agencies, any requirements to the project may be reviewed and approved by the department preservation staff. staff will modify -- i'm sorry. that's not correct. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is also in attendance and we are happy to

answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> secretary: ms. carver, you have five minutes for a presentation. >> yeah, i mean, i do not have much of a presentation other than what monica is showing you right now. >> secretary: okay. if that concludes your presentation, we can open up public comment. members of the public if you wish to address the commission on this item, you need to press star three to be added to the queue. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak. public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you, commissioners. >> president: great. any members of the commission who wish to make comment? >> thank you, monica, nice to see you again and thank you for

putting together this presentation. just a quick question, looking at the packet, can you point to me how much smaller the new roofing would become. it's kind of hard to tell. >> sure, and i may ask megan to also chime in on the existing measurements of those panels. but i know that the panels are being shrunken down to 19'' wide in that you cannot get a standard roofing system anymore that has larger panels than that 19''. >> commissioner: yeah. i don't mean to interrupt. i'm just trying to be brief. it seems like this is the only matter coming before us. 0 are these panels going to turn into 50% less than what the original module or we're talking about something that's shrunk by an inch. it's just kind of hard to tell

in these drawings what was -- i guess i'm seeing just a little elevation here. >> yes. on the last page of the packet. >> commissioner: it's just like one simple elevation. what is it half the size smaller? >> so i'm not sure exactly which packet you're looking at now, but in the drawing set, there is an image on the last page that has an existing detail of the roof and then the new detail of the snap-on batton system. currently, there's about 31'' and that will be reduced to 19'' in between each vertical batton. >> commissioner: and the overall height is consistent, it remains unchanged. >> that is correct. yes. >> commissioner: okay. thank you.

>> president: thank you. commissioner wright. >> commissioner: just to kind of jump onto the discussion that commissioner so was just asking about, i believe the height of the new baton is reduced from 2.5'' to 1.5'' and that the width of the batons, i spoke with monica yesterday to kind of go over some of these, but the width of the existing baton is if i recall 1.25'' but would get slightly wider to 1.5''. so the height is being reduced substantially, but -- fairly, but widened slightly. i don't know if that helps, but

it does seem -- commissioners, there was a question about the percentage of shrinkage and the density of these panels, you know, what that changes. it does seem like it's almost 50% based on my review. and so in my review, it also occurred to me that the original roof system that you can see in the historic photos was not a baton system and appeared to be flatter, you know, similar to a flat seamed roof, metal roof or potentially a tiled or straight roof. i looked at some other photos and it does appear that the original roof existed at least until 1963 based on what i saw

and the south end historic districts period of significance goes until 1935. so, you know, as the period of significance is up to 1935 and the flatter system was in the 1990s. i wonder in the manner of the original and a question that may be the project proponent can speak to. the batons are getting shorter as i mentioned before, but slightly wider and will be more densely spaced. i wonder if other systems were such as a flat seam or other type of systems were explored for instance.

i wondered also if flat seam or something completely flat was not possible due to wind loads or other constructbility issues if standing seams were explored or could be shorter or would allow wider spacing if they would be more less obtrusive and more visually consistent. so these are kind of some of the questions that were running through my mind that i thought it might be worth the commission discussing and weighing in on. >> president: thank you. does staff want to initially respond to that? >> thank you, commissioner. i'm sorry, my power cut out in this room a couple of minutes ago, so i may have missed the beginning of commissioner wright's statements and the end of commissioner so's statements. so if there were any questions directed towards staff specifically, i'm sorry, i

would have to ask you to repeat them i don't think i got them. and then i think, commissioner wright posed some questions that probably would be best answered by the project sponsor because they have to do with the consideration of the approach prior to the submittal of the project. can i ask the commissioners to pose the questions again for staff? >> commissioner: yeah. sorry i was curious if other systems were explored. i described the change in the baton system being shorter but a little wider, much denser with almost 50% denser in spacing and just kind of wondered and posed a question that other systems were explored, what those considerations might mean in terms of whether or not for instance a flat seam, i'm

sorry, a standing seam metal roof or a if a flat seam was not possible due to windows or constructbility if standing seam might result in shorter seams, wider panels, less obtrusive visually or more consistent visually. so that's kind of the gist of it. >> and, monica, i didn't really pose another question except just to clarify making sure i'm reading the most recent packet and it does concur with what commissioner wright mentioned that is almost worth changing the proportion close to 50% denser. so i haven't really asked a question. but in general, i concur, agree

with commissioner wright's questions and i'd like to hear the project sponsor's rationale for how to approach this. why are we defining exemplifying the roofing pattern that is actually outside of the period of time that is what is designated as the historic significant period. really i agree with commissioner wright's comments that will be in line with my questions after understanding what they're proposing. and i believe there's a way to do almost close to flat seam roof without and it's still code compliant for wind load capacity. i do believe there's a system out there, but i'd like to hear what the project sponsor had explained their obstacles to get through this project. thank you. >> absolutely. i can definitely speak to that.

initially, this project was brought to us because the roof is experiencing leaks and some of the panels are structurally beginning to slide and you can see some breaks in the openings between panels. so we spoke with the building h.o.a. and it is our intention to, of course, bring back the historic look first and foremost being a perez preservation firm. however, being an aesthetic to not only the gold color. so we did initially look at historic photos. we're trying to determine if it was a slate roof initially or a flat seam metal roof and it is our belief that it was a much darker metal tone or hue, an aluminum hue to begin with. so that would need quite a significant bit of research to see what the original color was as well. so the h.o.a. spoke with their

members and came back to us and said they would like to pursue matching the existing to the best of our ability with the color and the vertical baton system. so that was really our rationale. >> commissioner: and, if i might speak, this is commissioner wright. i don't believe -- well, i'm not suggesting that we specify a color necessarily, but the because that could be changed, but the configuration of the roof and kind of the appearance of the panels and the shadow lines and etc. is kind of what i was asking more about. >> the shadow lines of the vertical baton system of the

new proposed one? >> commissioner: no. i'm sorry. it was more of a statement is that, you know, my questions were more about the profiles and configuration rather than trying to say that the original color should be returned rather than, you know, repainting with the same gold color. >> commissioner: yeah. i really agree with commissioner wright and our question is more towards changing the materiality with this new baton system had changed the facade portion system of the look. so we'd like to hear what your thought process for it. >> sure. we just started investigating

vertical baton systems that we might be able to replace in kind and the more manufacturers that we came in contact with, the better understanding we got that an engineered system that came with a standard material warranty as well as a coastal warranty, no manufacturers any longer create panels wider than 19'' between vertical batons. so that was primarily if we want a warrantied and engineered system that has a great track record historically, that's what brought us to this snap-on baton system with 19'' between each. >> commissioner: and, if i might ask another question of the project proponent, was standing seam or other systems

explored beside the baton system and would panel with or seam heights, do you know if panel widths would be allowed to be wider than the 19'' or if the seam heights would be shorter? they certainly would be more narrow, the seams would be more narrow than the baton. >> sorry. could you restate your question? >> commissioner: yes. i was asking if other roofing systems such as a standing seam systems were explored in detail and if those, if a standing seam system might allow for wider spacing than the 19'' or if the seam heights could be shorter than 1.5'', that would

help minimize the -- i think the density the way these batons will appear on the roof or these joints will appear on the roof and, you know, i was just stating that certainly a standing seam system would have much narrower seams than the 1.25'' baton. >> understood. no. we did not pursue a standing seam system. we only looked into a vertical baton system in order to keep as close to the aesthetic as possible. >> commissioner: thank you. >> president: commissioner black, did you want to -- >> commissioner: yeah. i have some of the same

questions initially. maybe this is more related to -- they've made such significant changes to the tower and other

. >> president: commissioners, did you want to add any additional comments here? >> thank you, president matsuda. my last question is quite simple. i would like the project sponsor to look into other metal roofing system that carry a pretty robust long warranty. i do really agree and resinate with commissioner wright's comment about or whether we

should get a responsibility to look into what is this tower at the most historically significant period represent and look back where it was supposed to be looking like and take a look at that again. one of the packet information you provided is it was original 1920 roof and it is a pretty straight forward, very simple metal roofing and if we can explore that approach and i am pretty aware that there is such a thing out there in the architectural industry that carry warranty. so maybe perhaps i hope that just to be a responsible architect and historic preservation specialist that

maybe we can look at that one more time to do the right thing, to make sure that we can -- [ indiscernible ] i pass it all the time on the freeway and this is one of the most iconic pieces in the upper east cut. and i'd like that to be looking pretty and i know people throw fancy parties there. please, just take another good look at it. i really appreciate it. hope it doesn't take too long. >> president: thank you. commissioner johns. >> commissioner: thank you. as the commission was making comments and so forth, it struck me that as far as, you know, looking back or going back to the 1920s, commissioner black made a really i thought that this isn't 1920s, that was

all obliterated 20 years ago. if we go back to something that changes that look from 60 years ago by making it say flat, you know, we're kind of just seems to me like fooling around with this aesthetic or that aesthetic pretty much divorced from the design of the building that people have i would say become rather fond of. so my thought was, well, since apparently without a great deal of expense is a customized roof to reproduce what's there might be satisfactory to get as close as, you know, is commercially available now. so that's my observation. thank you. >> president: thank you.

commissioner foley. >> commissioner: i concur with commissioner black's comments about when the thing got renovated. i believe they told us there are water leaks right now. and i'm living with a roof that's leaking and it's really miserable. so i would concur with commissioner black and commissioner johns' comments. thank you. >> president: thank you. are there any other comments from the commission? any commissioners interested in entertaining a motion? or a motion with amendments?

>> commissioner: how about -- i'm not at all versed to having the applicant consider other roofing materials. perhaps as a means -- it's tricky because there are a bunch of approval agencies including an h.o.a. here. i wonder if we couldn't create an approval that allows staff to modify the approval should the architect and the h.o.a. agree to some other material that's closer to what was there originally. i feel like we're hybridizing a little bit. the building already has changed significantly. so that's why i decided that at the end of the day, even though this roofing will look a little bit different than what's there now, it's close enough to the

building as it exists today that i decided not to question it. i'm open to if anybody feels really strongly to consider some other roofing material. i'd like to not delay the project further. let's let them get their roof taken care of. >> commissioner: is that a motion, commissioner black? >> commissioner: a very -- >> president: commissioner black, is it an amendment to the motion to have staff -- delegate staff to work with the project sponsor to do further research and then -- >> commissioner: yes. that is my intention is if there is another roof material that works for the applicants that staff can approve, then i would say, yes. otherwise, i move to approve what's on paper now as of

today. so it doesn't have to come back to us unless, you know, my fellow commissioners feel otherwise. >> commissioner: i would second that motion. >> president: so it would be -- jonas, it would be an amendment to the current motion to have delegate to staff, is that correct? to do some further research in cooperation with the project sponsor and should staff feel that there is more of an appropriate material available to recommend that or and if it is not to just go ahead with what is being considered today. >> secretary: right. if i understand the motion correctly. it's essentially you are approving this request with the conditions. however, you are directing that the project sponsor continue working with staff on an alternate solution if one presents itself. >> commissioner: i second that

motion. >> commissioner: i have a question about that, about what we're voting on here, if i may. is staff supposed to look for something that's more appropriate, that is closer to the 1920s roof or more appropriate closer to the existing roof? that could make a difference. >> commissioner: i would -- go ahead. i would say this, i personally have a tremendous amount of faith in the planning department and the preservation team there and i feel they've all understood the commission very well and i think commissioner black's proposed motion gives them the ability to find a good solution for everyone including us without us trying to meddle with it all

the time. >> commissioner: i trust that too. i agree with commissioner foley. let's let the staff make that best appropriate determination. that's sensible motion. i like that. >> commissioner: and if then we could just be updated i guess on the result of that, i think that would be nice. i would also like to just question that since -- well, i'd like to question the window change as well and since the windows are getting replaced anyhow, it does seem more appropriate that the three over three configuration which would erroneously was included in the first packet would be the way to go rather than a two over two. >> if i may speak to that. hi, it's megan here.

we are currently only replacing eight units. so if we were to revert it back to the three over three, it would no longer match the remaining twelve units on the building next to it. just something to consider. >> commissioner: sure. and then i guess to followup on that discussion, do we know how old the other i think you said twelve units are if they're near the end of their youthful life, replacement of those might be around the corner as well. >> right. the eight that we are replacing right now have been reported to no longer operate and the gasket around the glass is deteriorating. i'm under the assumption that all the units were replaced during the renovation that was completed in 1992. and i believe they were also previously wood sash windows, three over three wood sash.

>> commissioner: so if the i think you said eight that are being replaced now that have failed, were replaced at the same time as the other twelve, then it's very likely that the other twelve will need replaced fairly soon. i mean 1992, that's what 30 years. that's about the life of a metal window. >> i would agree with that. absolutely. i would agree with you. i do think that eventually they will need to be, but i know financially speaking these four units were prioritized by the h.o.a. >> commissioner: so i would like to suggest that the original light configuration be returned to the three over

three. i'm not suggesting that they go back to wood. >> commissioner: i can support that too. can we make that into the amendments to our motion? >> commissioner: so when i made my motion, i really made it out of respect for two of the architects on the commission who had raised concerns about the roof. i'm really feeling certainly staff can manage this. i hate throwing things to staff and i don't want to slow this project down. they need to fix the roof. i'm not sure that i -- i don't -- i'm not sure i'm prepared to accept the additional motion that relates to the windows as

part of my motion. but someone can make an alternative motion. >> secretary: very good. >> president: commissioner wright, would you like to make an alternative motion or to add to commissioner black's motion? >> commissioner: yes. i think that, you know, i would like to propose using the basis of commissioner black's motion, but then adding the original light configuration of three over three. i also see that rich ducrey and commissioner johns might have some comments that would affect the discussion or the motion. >> sure, commissioners. happy to chime in here. i think what i hear the

commissioners discussing is like basically differences in the types of preservation approach. there's definitely a line of thought that says the building should go back to its original qualities. there's another line of thought that looks at what the building looked like at the point of designation and/or recognizes the future alterations. more i will say from staff and we usually rely fairly strictly on the designating report and look at are more about what the designated staff feel about it

at the point we recognized it. it was clear in the history of this building that this building had been altered. we felt the work was till proposed compatible. so i think it's helpful if the commission expresses your as to which direction you'd like us to take. we'll go back to what was the building at the time of designation or does it still meet the overall character of the building and the district itself. >> commissioner: i appreciate that explanation and i feel

more comfortable with my motion. >> commissioner: this is commissioner foley. i think that i've. i was around when they built that building. and i think our job is to weigh in on these things, but i think what mr. sucre said, we have to respect that because i think the applicants need to understand that there is a process here. so i would again second commissioner black's motion and second. can we get a vote?

>> president: commissioner johns, did you want to -- >> commissioner: yeah. just one thing since commissioner wright asked for my participation in this. mr. sucre really said in more i think finished language than i did the point that i was making. i agree with commissioner foley that the staff is entitled to quite a large degree of trust and are confident, but i don't think the commission should advocate its responsibility and i would look back to what was done in the past when there was earlier approvals.

thank you. >> secretary: okay. commissioners, there's no further deliberation from members of the commission. i've heard two competing motions but i did not hear a second to commissioner wright's motion. so for now, we'll take up the original motion made by commissioner black that has been seconded and please correct me if i'm wrong, but i understand that motion to essentially approve this with conditions directing the project sponsor to continue working with staff on alternate roofing and window solutions, but leaving that discretion to staff as to what ultimately is approved and i think no one would mind if staff returned with an update to the commission at some point in the future when the final decision is made. on that motion, [roll call]

>> commissioner: i guess i just have a question, jonas, before we move on. i think you're suggesting in your statement of the motion that we rely on staff's approach for the windows. i don't think there's any question about the roofing approach. i think my motion -- my previous motion was just adding on to commissioner black's motion to incorporate some guidance on the window approach. is that correct? >> secretary: i understand that, but i did not hear commissioner black accept your amendment. >> commissioner: you're correct. i didn't really because i -- i think i -- well. >> commissioner: i understand that. that's why there were two competing motions.

i don't think that commissioner black wanted to incorporate my suggestion about the windows into her motion. >> secretary: that's what i heard. >> commissioner: may i speak. i would like to second commissioner wright's additional aesthetic recommendation to the window treatment. >> secretary: okay. now we do have two competing motions and we should call the first one and take that vote and then if that fails, we'll go to the second. >> president: correct. >> secretary: okay. so on the motion to approve with conditions with allowing staff to have final discretion on the roof and windows, [roll call] frrdz

okay. well that motion fails 3-3 with commissioners wright, johns, and so voting against. so there's an alternate motion where we are approving this matter with conditions allowing staff to have discretion over the roof, but to require a three over three light configuration for the windows. on that motion, [roll call] very good, commissioners. that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner foley voting against. starting off the year with a bang. thank you all, commissioners

for a very short hearing and we will see you in two weeks for election of officers. >> president: thank you everyone happy new year. >> secretary: enjoy the rest of your afternoon. >> commissioner: thank you. happy new year. >> commissioner: happy new year. >> recreation and parks

commission. will the secretary please call the roll. (roll call) >> the san francisco recreation and park commission acknowledges that we occupy the unseeded land of the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. we honor them for enduring commitment to mother earth. as the indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance, they have never forgotten their responsibilities as the care takers of this place. as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. we recognize our duty to honor

through