well. and this is certainly something we would engage in days cushion about. we haven't at this point done the outreach to neighborhood groups and developers and the community, although i hear you loud and leclearly what the art community thinks about it and would want to go through that process before we amend the requirements. and to move on, in section two of the recommendations, this is, again, through the data and some of the details as anmarie recalled the public process and the physical limitation and the 5% discount to agree that our

office work through 2a, b, and c. and we were unclear and i appreciate the clarity now on recommendation three, which is removing the arts commission review. if the arts commission and planning staff have agreed on recommendation number three, then i think we would agree as well. we would like to note it and have the board consider that issue at land user to full board at some point just to note it, but we were unclear that that consensus had been reached and glad to hear that happened and if that consensus is reached, we would go along with that. i will allow cat to add anything. >> i don't have that much to add. i know jason summarized it, but supervisor chiu is open to the recommendation about expanding this and he was very interested in what the planning commission has to sayn't an it and very interested in doing appropriate outreach if that is your direction. >> if you have any questions, we would be happy to answer.

president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you for a very interesting presentation. i am pretty much on board with many of the things and the flexibility on how the 1% is spent is a good thing. and i think that the expanding of the requirement seems to be outreach or a lot of people spoken in favor of that. and of course, dictated by the size of the project as the project has to be a certain size for it to be required. i think maintenance is important. that part would go into the fund and could be used for maintenance and fine for using it for the dome and is beautiful and was a good use and unfortunately stiement san francisco does a good job of building and a poor job of maintaining. it is important for things that we have with our classic buildings and classic works of art that they be maintained and that may be a perfectly good use

of those funds. the specific use of a specific nonprofit to utilize the funds and a little bit of caution on that. we have to have a lot of oversight to make sure it's certainly not that it isn't a very beneficial use putting an elevator in for accessibility and various other things and we are not getting art produced out of the funds. we're getting some other things. and that would have to be a supervisory to make sure it is exactly what we are, and the art commission review, again, that is something that would be up to the art commission i think as to how do they feel about that. i think there should be some review to the art and oz to the appropriateness. and i have certainly, this is not what' before us today but i would certainly like to see more classic art brought forward in areas where the format is all, for example, the civic center and if something were to be

produced in the quadraangle between city hall and the other buildings, and i would hope it would be something that fits in with the development of architectural style and the same with a lot of the areas with daniel burnham-inspired buildings in the downtown area and so while i don't think we need to have any kind of policing of what art is going in, i think certainly we haven't seen too much of that in the last few years and certainly must have leaders that are worthy of having statues in their honor. now days we don't seem to do that. but just a thought. president olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i appreciate the comments from the mayor and supervisor's office. and i am going to move for the

recommendation with the modifications done by the department and add on that the recommendation that the legislation seriously consider expanding this citywide in total. i realize it's going to take a touch more time and the developers i have been in touch with have considering some of the small details been very affirmative actually and i think we heard that earlier today as well. and so i don't think there would be a great problem with it. and that would be the motion. >> second. olague r commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i want to thank ms. lieberman and mr. williams for being a living testimony to the success of the work in the early 80's. and couldn't be a better

presentation than those people who actively thought it out and thought about it and see it success. i come from professional practice that created some of the buildings and discussed much of the art including the developer who is really made this happen. and it's realfully that area where my confidence is that it would work to fix that part of it. and there is maturity and there is local, international experience and public spaces but also in working with artists who are able to rise to the challenge and meet iing a large kind of art scene that has created successful development in the district. and to that be expanded and would be wonderful. and will be an exhilarating idea

as the city is growing and maturing and with the good planings and buildings with the select addition of art could add an additional component to create a thread throughout the city. is this a good time to talk about that? there is never any good time when you are asking for additional percentages with more allocating of funds in the building process that has become not only longer and more complicated but right now is pretty much under the shadow of a whole bunch of other constraints. the thing i am concerned about and i am always cautious of is certainly creating another bureaucracy and another form of governance to make this process more complicated and i would say no. and the process that we have,

can it be expanded? yes. do we need additional oversight? i think the oversight we have is quite mature and has through the many organizations and arts organizations and been matured and been modified enough that i am not really interested in supporting a specific institutionalizing of the art commission's doing the oversight or the interviewing, etc., but let it evolve that if the arts commission participate, there is always has and not any specific more formalized role than what is currently already doing and that is a mature and good discussion. and i agree with the modifications of the mayor's office and the supervisor issues and ak jment of the areas that can be pushed down and some of

the -- and probably my own ability to listen after four hours of sitting here, some of the 1a, 2a, 3a, et, and because there was no specific item of what that entails and i can't read that fast to pay attention to hear you speaking, aam not quite sure what i am i proving. and i would like to see a preconditional draft to what we are approving and see it right into the record that we all understand what we're supporting. i am sure it is a good intent and hopefully straddles the diversion comprise which are being made and moved a little bit fast for my taste. >> it is there in the document. commissioner moore: i can't read while i am listening. commissioner borden: i can -- >> i can summarize the

recommendations on page seven of the executive summary and some in the resolution and if it is easier, i will talk through the executive summary. and page seven, number one, maintain the downtown gallery associated with buildings that have the significant privately owned public spaces. number 1a, maintain the existing requirement for on site art for nonresidential buildings with the open spaces over 3,000 square feet located on the ground floor. below that size or on the roof tops are not required to provide the public art. 1 bill clintons, allow the other projects to provide onsite art and that would be the developer's choice. 1c for large projects over $1 million art requirement and

require the first $1 million be provided on site and 1d, this is the one that was not agreed to by the legislative sponsors but is part of the motion by commissioner miguel. the commission would then request that the board require this universally to noncommercial uses and if they are in other commercial districts not just the c3. the up withes mentioned are the soma mixed use and eastern neighborhood districts and not mentioned but always discussed by staff was the downtown residential and rincon district so if we could put that into the motion would be great. and on page eight allow more flexibility in how the funds are spent and provided that the expenditures are decided through the public process with the arts commission and 2a, instead of

providing the option that prescribes the certain on site or the payment to the fund and the department and the commission suggest that the requirement for all residential uses be deivied up in either amount to put on the fund. and if the nonresidential requirement is in place, there is no need for fiscal limits. and the ordinance has a lot of detailses about how it is spent in certain ways and the commission recommendation would be as long as it goes through the public process, that is good enough for us. 2c, remove the proposed 5% discount with on site and pay into the fund. and to remove the art work requirement and four, consider adding alternative sources for public funding administered by the art commission and then commissioner miguel said al add

ed the recommendation and not part of four but part of the motion is that the legislators should consider expanding this proposal citywide. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: the only question i would ask is we are not for a longer term study recommending that large-scale residential over a certain size should be considered at some point to also contribute? >> yes, we are. commissioner moore: okay. i didn't quite hear that. president olague: and that part is not in the recommendation, but there was a recommendation so not only nonprez denial projects but also residential projects -- is that part of the motion? that part will be added. commissioner moore: and i think it needs to be specified and cannot be every residential

project. >> no, the size requirement. >> it is currentfully there. president olague: and i believe he wanted to put in a request to the board to put off hearing this at the land use so there is more time to do additional outreach and -- commissioner miguel: and i support that. president olague: i think we're ready. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion before you is for approval of staff's recommendation 1, 2, 3, and 4 with the inclusion you recommend the legislators consider expanding the proposal citywide and the size requirement is included and that the land use committee postpone their

consideration to allow more outreach. >> one slight amendment to that, i believe the commission wanted 25,000 square foot size to apply to residential and nonresidential projects both. >> okay. as ms. rodgers has reiterated -- please exexcuse me. on that motion, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. president olague: and we are going to take half an hour break because we will have to leave the building to get lunch and come back. so we need the time. secretary avery: commission is taking a 30-minute break.