commissioner johnck?cond and i made a point earlier on about having some little better expense of the minutes and that is great. thank you. >> thank you. >> second. >> okay. and then do we have any members from the public who wish to comment on this? >> seeing none we will close that bring it back for a vote. >> commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes? >> hylan. >> yes. >> johnck. >> yes. >> johns. >> yes. matsuda. >> yes. >> pearlman. >> yes. >> commissioner wolfram. >> yes. >> and hasz? >> yes. >> and that passes 7 to 0 and if i might say that is just not my work it was the other people behind the scenes that work hard on these minutes and the format of the calendar. but i do appreciate that and commissioners item five, comments and questions. >> commissioner wolfram? >> i was wondering if you might consider the hearing and i will cancel, and we could attend the memorial which i think is at 2:00 p.m. that is just something for consideration. >> my comments. >> and comment echoed by commissione

. >> back to the commission, commissioner johnck? >> yes, thank you. >> i am interested in getting a little further understanding about the original brick and wondered if the members of the architecture review committee would it be andrew? yeah, that, and maybe karl, and you previously looked at this, and your recommendation on the stucco was that because the original brick that the location of the original brick was a question. and it was not to be found and so, the next best historic representation would be through stucco, i guess that is the question. or, does this new information about the possibility location of the original brick would this make me difference in your original consideration about the use of the historic material? >> at that hearing we were told that the original brick was not available and we felt that the stucco was a better choice than the brick which seemed kind of not an appropriate material in terms that it was just a thick brick and that it was and there seemed to be evidence of those and since i had origi

johnck. >> yes. >> pearlman >> yes. >> wolfram. >> yes. >> hasz. >> yes. so moved that passes unanimously. >> thank you, good afternoon, crai, the department staff and the item before you is a informational presentation on the park and i would like to introduce you to mark and david from the port of san francisco. >> good afternoon, commissioners mark piat, court preservation staff and i wanted to pass forward a letter march 5, 2013, from the architect you aral heritage and mark had to leave and was not here to present this himself. and it is a letter of support for the train, code master plan. >> and so, i am going to just give you a quick background and then david pray will get into the substance of the planning effort and the proposals within the plan. >> so just in the way of introduction, the site location pier 70, is the port property between mariposa and 22nd street, east of illinois in the central water front and the proposed crane co park over the master plan effort was focused is between 19th and mariposa street. >> and this slide is just to prov

>> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes, commissioner yo* johnck. >> hasz. >> yes. >> wolfram. >> yes. >> peer man >> yes, that paces and places you on item ten. 2011.0913a (shelley caltagirone: 415-558-6625) 320-323 judah street, north side eighth and ninth avenues. assessor's block 1763, lots 020 and 021 - request for a certificate of appropriateness . >> i am here to present this and also known as the building and office building. and which is the city's latest landmark. and it is located in the inner sunset neighborhood. and the art deco section of the building was constructed in 1932 and just stream line modern addition was added in 40. and the intention is to rehab tait the structure to current standards and to restore the facade to the period of significance and it has expensive water damage due to failed plumbing systemed and failed and improperly detailed system and foundations. and the dry rot has resulted in extensive exterior and interior finished damage, of the damage to the substrate and the substructure. and that the reconstruction of the substrate and the sub, sorry. an

. >> johnck, here.

. >> back to the commission, commissioner johnck? >> yes, thank you. >> i am interested in getting a little further understanding about the original brick and wondered if the members of the architecture review committee would it be andrew?

. >> johnck. >> yes. >> matsuda. >> yes. >> pearlman >> yes. >> wolfram. >> yes. >> hasz *. >> yes. >> that passes 7 to 0. and in places you on item

. >> back to the commission, commissioner johnck? >> yes, thank you. >> i am interested in getting a little further understanding about the original brick and wondered if the members of the architecture review committee would it be andrew? yeah, that, and maybe karl, and you previously looked at this, and your recommendation on the stucco was that because the original

. >> back to the commission, commissioner johnck? >> yes, thank you. >> i am interested in getting a little further understanding about the original brick and wondered if the members of the architecture review committee would it be andrew? yeah, that, and maybe karl, and you previously looked at this, and your recommendation on the stucco was that because the original brick that the location of the original brick was a question. and it was not to be found and so, the next best historic representation would be through stucco, i guess that is the question. or, does this new information about the possibility location of the original brick would this make me difference in your original consideration about the use of the