of human resources regarding the classification of the position, any feedback you like to provide would be useful as well. i recognize that if you do not have the information in front of you, it is a little difficult to consider. commissioner moore: just a step back. for those in the audience who do not know, secretary avery will be retiring within a few months. and for the purpose of helping find a replacement for her position, president fong assigned commissioners antonini, borden, and myself to be on the subcommittee. matsuta and two other commissioners are also on it. so the six of us have to decide

if we are going forward with a joint secretary or with each of us to be allowed to have separate secretaries. as we were comparing the similarities and differences of what we do, there was a joint decision that we would go to the other, which now we wholeheartedly embrace because the two and a half months we have now spent together, the six of us, we realize how much, and the ground there is and how -- how much common ground there is. and we look at one commission and where to put resources. with great support from the department, we have worked out an extremely good system, also shared by commissioner avery in public meetings to discuss the issues with commissioner antonini and commissioner borden which were summarized. the announcement is ready to be released.

we have crossed all the i's and all the t's. i would like to have one minor change filled in which was asked by the historic preservation yesterday. generally, we have very much work with existing templates and with existing procedural descriptions which we call from other departments, other commissions, and then went into a heart to heart which was essential and at the core of what both commissions do. i feel really good about the outcome. i think it really addresses the broadest responsibilities to the commission, to the public, to the department, and brings it into a level of transparency of mutual responsibility which i am very happy about. so we're looking for highly qualified candidates. california is an open playing field with redevelopment throughout the state in non- operation anymore. there should be a large number of qualified people.

and we're looking just to capture that. and if we could get an update on the minor change, i would appreciate it. >> i would be happy to. i am with the planning department. at the historic preservation commission yesterday, there was a comment made that when you get the position over the section of the job announcement which describes the responsibilities of the planning commission and the historic preservation commission, the historic preservation commission felt that it was not accurate to say that the hpc simply advises the mayor, board, planning commission, and agencies on historic preservation. they wanted it spelled out that the do have approval authority on certain types of permits and entitlements. we will put to better some language that addresses that concern and submit it to the subcommittee again. commissioner wu: i want to thank the commissioners for their hard, hard work on this

endeavor. i know that it is always tough to write a job description by committees. i trust that have done a great job. i wanted to ask secretary avery. i do not believe we have all the materials in front of us. is there a certain process we should be falling for getting those materials? what's actually, i apologize. my understanding is that all the material was linked to the item on calendar. according to commissioner borden, that is not the case. with that being said, you do not have anything before you. so we would need to recalendar this for your consideration next week. commissioner wu: ok, thank you. commissioner sugaya: without knowing too much about it, based on what commissioner borden said, i think we should strive -- or i do not know what the right term is, to keep the highest classification we can with the current classification

or however i should say that. i think if we need reinforcement, then i am happy to do something about it. i do not know what, but -- >> commissioners, there is a draft letter that was circulated among the two presidents and the chairs of the subcommittee to ms. callahan, and i am happy to circulate that among all the commissioners so everyone can see what is being put forward. but, yes, the commissioners are asking that dhr reconsider the classification that they have determined the position should have to a classification equal to what i have or equivalent. and we will see what happens with that. commissioner wu: ok, thank you. commissioner moore: i appreciate

your expressed support for that. we have been going back and forth because of difficult times. when a person takes on two commissions including the regular calendar of having to work late at night, i think it is essential to have somebody who can run with that type of an increased workload. so we're all very happy. i asked if it is appropriate to run this letter by the city attorney just to make sure that all verbiage is correct, there are several references where certain things we do have to fit certain legal requirements, and i want to make sure that that is properly expressed. it pertains particularly to record keeping and clarity, because in a changing environment of autonomy -- of electronic communication, we need to be sure that the new commission secretary would know

some of the latest. but the verbiage itself is a suggestion on our part, if that would be able to be checked by the city attorney, i think we would recommend doing that. commissioner borden: picking up on what commissioner moore said about the management to commissions, one of the things we felt strongly about is, because this role as managing two commissions, that the higher level is justified. one of the reasons that we even consider doing it jointly is because we thought we would be able to get a seasoned person. if, for some reason, dhr does not consider our request, we may be coming back to you to reexamine that approach up one versus two commissions secretaries but obviously, it impacts the level of person that you can get with a lower stature, and it could impact of this commission and the other commission is adequately served. and the public especially, too. commissioner wu: thank you.

any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> well, thank you, commissioners. we will bring this back to you next week for your consideration of the job description that will be redistributed with the addition of hpc's comments from yesterday. commissioners, we can move forward on your calendar to any commissioner questions and/or comments. commissioner antonini: thank you. first of all, do not want to disappoint any of you, but you're watching planning ethics that will be held later today in another room. even though we were in this room yesterday, i believe there session begins at 5:00 p.m. today in another part of the building if i am not mistaken. i did want to congratulate commissioners wu and commissioner hillis you're going to be joining us. commissioner wu will continue on

the planning commission, having been confirmed by the board of supervisors. commissioner hillis will join us after he is formally sworn in. i hope to be confirmed within the next couple of weeks, too, and be able to continue to contribute and to bring to the commission by years of experience. and these are going to be four very exciting years ahead of us, and i hope to be here to help. and i really appreciate having been able to meet with all of our city supervisors to talk about their issues and concerns, both district-wide and city- wide, and i think the lines of communication have to always remain open. and, as most of you know, i am always available, not only to our supervisors but to every member of the public, and my cell phone and home phone and e- mail and everything is easily accessible. if anybody ever has any questions, they should always directed them to me. i tried to get back as soon as i possibly can.

finally, i appreciate the supervisors who spoke on my behalf in the last few days, and i also -- those who may have had concerns, i have always -- have always been appreciative and respectful, and i appreciate that ongoing process. thank you offered any support you have given me as i move forward in this process. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. commissioner sugaya: a quick news item. i was just reading this in a publication called san francisco public press. an issue on growing smarter for the bay area. start with one headline that says -- can san francisco at 150,000 more people as the bay area is expected to grow by 2.1 million people by 2040. and there is the original plan, i take it, called plan they

area, i guess. >> one bay area, yeah. commissioner sugaya: have we had a briefing on that or can we? >> sure. commissioner sugaya: it is interesting, because as as this region is the fastest growing in california but planners agree that sustainable growth can be achieved if new development is funneled to the right places. san francisco, oakland, san jose, and other cities along bart or rapid transit lines, which are the ideal place is the new people. the implications for san francisco -- it says, calls for san francisco to create 92,410 new housing units by 2014. ms. wu knows quite well what that means. a 14% increase of all new housing in the entire region, so they are putting a lot of emphasis on the cities that have denser population is at the

moment. next is a headline that says -- cities resist regional plan to limit sprawl. now we have the city and others, like oakland, struggling with trying to increase some density to accommodate this kind of growth were trying to plan for using existing zoning and general plant policies to accommodate that growth. yet, we have cities outside of the area in what i guess you would call suburban america that are resisting the idea that there should be growth and increased density. it is a challenge. i can hand this around. i do not know if people have seen it. it is an interesting item, yeah. commissioner wu: thank you. commissioner moore: design the moment, in response to commissioner sugaya's comments, alameda, which is the suburban

low density single-family housing and are now close to the bay region just a few weeks ago changed its laws to accept higher density housing. how high its density is is probably not like san francisco, but at least it is more than two story town houses. i think they're going into the four to six low-rise apartment vernacular, but that is a step in the right direction. i actually pushed the buzzer to ask director rahaim -- we received a letter, withdrawal of appeal, preliminary negative declaration on 376 castro, and i cannot figure out what that was or what that was supposed to be. >> there was an appeal. the project has not come to you yet. i believe it is the one at the

corner of market and castro. right at the corner. the gas station at the northwest corner of market and castro. it has not come to you yet, but there has been an appeal. it would have come to you, but the appeal was withdrawn. so the project will still come to you. commissioner moore: ok. i cannot make sense of it. you put it in contact now. thank you. commissioner sugaya: just to put kalemeh debt into context, up to recently, they actually would not allow anything -- to put alameda into context, up until recently, there will not add anything bigger than a duplex. the had examples of multiple family housing including housing above retail that were not allowed. so this is quite a change, i think. commissioner antonini: on the same subject, i saw a news report, and i think they had said, as in 1979, there was a zoning change in alameda that had disallowed any multiple

unit. it might have allowed the duplexes. it was a very restrictive. now, state law has mandated that they do their share of population and housing, accommodating population. in the state law -- i believe the council had voted to allow conformity to what the state was saying. and changing the zoning, although nothing according to the report had come through yet as far as the project was concerned, but they were allowed to rezone and change the 1979 zoning. commissioner borden: i am responding to that. i wonder if there is something we could maybe learned more about. we talked about having a regional reports to understand what some of the other municipalities are doing. particularly the closer end,

oakland and san jose, because a lot of people who work down there live up here. i would also like to understand -- i would think under fair housing law, what kinds of ordinances would be legal? it would not seem to me that multiple family unit living having a law like that would pass muster because you must have housing ranges for diverse populations of income, one would think. i do not know. it would be helpful to understand what other regions are planning some again figured out. i know we also even talked about the project in brisbane that is happening as well by the bart station there, just so we can understand how it is flowing together. commissioner moore: a good source for tapping into on that issue is spur. the san jose office is very closely following it. their strong components for smart growth. but it is more the details and

information that is available for which they're definitely a great source. the discussion or controversy alameda got themselves into dates easily 15 or more years back when, at the time of the closure of the naval air station where the council proposed to reduce the plane with higher density, which was a really good plan but it fell on its face at that time. they have been battling this issue ever since. commissioner wu: thank you. i just wanted to add two items. last night i attended an interesting forum put on by one of the new tech firms in midmarket. we have had some discussion here at the commission about what it means that these new firms are moving into the midmarket and what it means for the populations that are there currently. the question on the table last night was, how can these firms play a role in ensuring that

there is food in the neighborhood for the tenants living in sro's? i thought it was an interesting beginning of the discussion. i believe they're tapping into improve sf. i am not exactly sure what that is, but using back together ideas. there are some members of the audience today from a program that my employer is involved in or i am involved in. the chinatown community classroom. commissioner moore came to their final review, if you want to call it that, i think two years ago. last year. it was really great. sort of a grass-roots training program for the future planers of our city. and we're going to be doing a brown bag -- brownback exchange with the planning department. i wanted to invite all the commissioners to come to the final project review on august 3 this year at 10:00 a.m. commissioner moore: would you

send out an e-mail, please? can the rise so we can see who they are? commissioner wu: sure. thanks for coming today. >> ok, thank you. commissioners, we can move on to directors report, directors announcements, and review of the past week's events and the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> thank you. good afternoon. if i may stretch of the conversation for one more minute on the regional plan. we have been working with abag on the sustainable community strategy required under sb 375. the numbers mentioned were the numbers allocated to san francisco and were based on a very extensive process. they originally were higher. then they dropped in went up. they went back and forth for several months. they have finalized those numbers and are entering the eir phase of that sustainable

community synergy. so i think it would be good time to have everything and hearing in the planning commission. i will ask staff to get organized and will try to get folks from abag, and i think spur has been heavily involved in that. secondly, i just wanted to call your attention to the director's report today. there is a little note about having recognized milestone years of service for the planning staff. it turns out that we had never done this in the department. because of that, we were sort of playing catch up. 100 people out of 100 people repplier recognized for years of service, -- out of 150 or recognized. ranging from five years to 35 years in service. the second longest is your secretary linda avery who has 30 years of service with the department. it was a very nice event, and i think staff appreciated the

recognition. i also realize that there are some commissioners on this commission to have multiple years of service which we should recognize. we would be happy to do that in a future meeting as well. finally, i wanted -- we have had a week of public meetings related to the better market street project. the first one was on it tuesday where we had over 200 people attend. it was a credible, -- incredible attendance. the second one, saturday, july 21, on one south of the nest. we also have published today, i guess, the was a public webinar at noon. we're getting very good responses on the market street work. i know commissioner miguel is continuing to be on the committee that is overseeing work as well. so that it concludes my presentation unless there are questions. commissioner sugaya: yes, i

would just like to also recognize kate stacy who has been in service to not only the planning commission but the landmark preservation advisory board way back in the 1980's. maybe i should not say that far back. [applause] commissioner wu: thank you. commissioner antonini: i just wanted to ask the director -- i also understand there is a sunday streets, although it is not necessarily planning issue, but the rotate through different neighborhoods. i think it is third street this sunday if i am not mistaken. >> [inaudible] commissioner antonini: that is what i have heard. not sure if it is correct. but it is good that everyone knows that is where it is going to be this sunday. >> get afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. weekly report of the board of supervisors and land use activities. at the ladies' committee, there were a couple of items. first, a transit center district plan -- at the land use

committee. this includes all the ordinances your review in may. in addition to regular committee members, supervisors kim and olague joined in on the hearing as they are co-sponsors of the ordinances, along with the mayor. the director and maria mid opening remarks. staff then presented the highlights of the plan. the supervisors posed numerous questions to staff. they're most interested in hearing more about affordable housing, open space, shadow analysis, funding, parking and a building height, and historic preservation. there were very interested in the plan. about a dozen during the comment, and they could be characterized as supportive of. the supervisors present expressed substantial support for the plane, the comments of this, and it points to the city. we thought the committee forwarded all elements to the

board with the support. next up was the cpmc long-range develop plan. this hearing was the fourth of four planned hearings on that plan. monday's hearing posted -- focus on transportation and housing. the housing discussion focused on three primary topics. the underworld -- of the underlying code requirements of the jobs housing linkage fee. the van ness special use district housing construction requirement, that you do is a vigil in conjunction with non- residential. and the housing payments negotiated as part of the development agreement. city staff also presented the transportation component with a focus on the cathedral hill campus. president chiu and supervisor kim and campos join the committee for portions of this five-hour hearing. there was an overview of the transportation elements of the project. our presentation was followed by a presentation by the sfmta on

the provisions of the developed agreement related to transit services. last of the mayor's office presented streetscape provisions to the development agreement to the supervisors were interested in understanding why the planning department's in terms of the jobs-housing linkage fee was not applicable to the project. many members of the public felt it should be, but it is not required by the code. the board expressed interest in department's transportation analysis, questioning the accuracy of the department's methodology as it relates to traffic, transit, and emergency vehicle access. they were also interested in the mta's involvement in review of the transportation analysis. in the end, the item was continued by a vote of 2-1 to the call of the chair. following that on tuesday, the eir for this project was before the full board. the primary concerns were related to the eir's alternatives. transportation ounces, housing,

and air quality. the beginning of cpmc's presentation, general counsel articulated a request for a two- week it -- continuance of the eir. after nearly seven hours of testimony, the board continued the eir for two weeks to july 31. a majority of the board indicated that if there were to have voted on the adequacy of the eir that night, they would have voted to uphold the appeal, primarily due to three received inaccuracies. the first would be the transportation analysis methodology. the second would be the limited scope of the project objectives. the third was the failure to provide adequate analysis and the housing need for various income levels. which staff pointed out that that is a socioeconomic issue and not a ceqa review issue. the item was continued until the end of the month. on tuesday was the charter amendment for the housing trust fund.

this item was referred out of committee last week, and per your request last week, you'll find a short memo in your packet this week that this summarize the major components of the charter amendment. the legislative digest that has been written by the city attorney. you have a hearing on a charter amendment as well as the companion ordinance in the middle of august. but this week at the board hearing, the item was continued as required by the procedures. charter amendments cannot be voted on at their first appearance of the board. lastly, i wanted to share a couple introductions this week. supervisor wiener introduced an organism would permit that five- foot height increase for active use this along both castro street and the 24th street, noe valley neighborhood commercial districts. actually, there are three. there was also a resolution sponsored by six supervisors that would affirm the board of supervisors commended to ensuring the long-term viability and operation of st.

luke's hospital. the last one is the second ordinance. this one was altered -- offered by supervisors and meaner and farrell. it would reinstate liquor license controls and establish cu control for limited restaurants on union street. both of those ordinances will be before you for the next three months. in response to the question you asked last week about the spending ordinance -- depending ordinance to amend the environment third to require a new and remodeled buildings to provide water fills stations, it was unclear from the short summary of that would apply to all new construction after further consultation with the supervisor sponsor and the puc, that would only apply to buildings which were required to already provide public drinking fountains because the residential projects would not have that requirement. and i did hear from the zoning administrator that there was no

board of appeals hearing last night. so that includes the report unless there are questions. commissioner antonini: thank you, excellent report as always. i just wanted to go back on the concerns of the supervisors in regards to the environmental impact report regarding cal pacific. you mentioned three things. one was transportation. we talked about analysis on housing lead to an income of all of the best levels and acknowledged it is not part of the barn to report. what was the third one? >> concerned that the scope of the project objectives is too limited. >> i was at the hearing. the scope of -- the project sponsor's objectives. at the beginning of the e.r., the sponsor has to lay out objectives -- at the beginning of the eir. there objectives and if they're willing to narrowly defined.