at that point. at this point we can still put the job announcement out, keeping in mind that this process has the potential to change. president fong: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: would you please clarify that this commission has the right to appoint based on the history of this commission, but it is historic preservation that might have to consider hiring at a different job classification. >> i do not want to -- because i am not an expert in human resources, and certainly not for the city, but i would say that my classification was derived at because of the combination of functions i have done over the years. it would be unlikely even if you

separate it out that you would have someone at the same classification. so if you separate out, i would imagine that each commission would have a different classification for their commission secretary. it seems to me, and this is just a personal opinion, that it would be appropriate for a combined function to share the classification, or to have the classification that i currently have, or somlar to it. i cannot speak for dhr, simply do not have the expertise to do so. commissioner moore: i would like to add the comments that i think the commission took the responsible attitude to combine the commission's with one secretary where the work is significantly larger, and i do believe the letter offered by fong and chase addresses this

issue sensitively and up to be forward after today's acceptance of where we are. >> the letter has already gone to this callahams. callahan. president fong: i think the commissioners for purchase of it on the subcommittee and look forward to the next phase. -- thank. >> thank you. we will forward the job description. we will finalize this and send it on for processing. i would say the next meeting of the subcommittee with the approval of the job announcement will be to discuss interview questions. those have to be done in closed session. as part of that, and probably an open session later on as we talk

about criteria for greeting the interview questions, the subcommittee is still needing to consolidate, so that we did not -- at the moment we have quite a few, and we want to bring that into a more manageable project. they will be meeting in the future. part of that will be closed session to come up with the questions for the interview. president fong: great. thank you. >> is that extend to how the interview will be conducted? aiming toward a subcommittee situation again, or whether the commission's in their entirety will participate or has that come up yet? >> no, that has not. the subcommittee can discuss this, but we will have to come

back to make recommendations to the full commission. the decision will ultimately be decided by the full commission, unless the fall commission. commissioner antonini: this is commissioner comments now? i thought he was on commissioner comments. if there is no other comments, we will move on to item 9 on the regular calendar, which is commissioner questions or matters. commissioner moore: i am wondering if the city attorney could give us an explanation due to the fact that i have never on my time seen a commission decision and board of supervisors' decision move to the potential of the ballot box. i understand sufficient signatures were submitted for

that to happen. in putting this on the ballot suspends a hiring freeze. >> deputy city attorney, susan the walls. we can give you more in debt update, either later today or next week, but in general and a legislative decision can be reprimanded within 30 days of that decision through the collection of a certain number of signatures and other procedures. in terms of moving forward now, i understand the board of supervisors have an opportunity to consider the project's one more time before it goes to a vote of the people.

that is what i know about this point, but if you have other questions, i would have to look into that at a later date. commissioner moore: i was curious about the process, because few of us have seen it under the microscope. it has not happened for a long time. it would be fun to hear. i have a second point while we are asking questions. we might want to ask what the real entitlement process really should or should not do. we have over the past six-eight months because of economic downturns be -- been bombarded with large projects, and i am not referring to anything on today's calendar, but i generally want to know like on

concern -- consumer products, the date of operation. do we have something as well? do city plans change? we are sometimes carrying projects are around 48-10 or however many years without actually taking a more closer look at it. revisiting an architectural solution, revisiting some of the land use assumptions. is that anything that would be in the interest of this commission to consider? i would ask that the mayor's office but for economic development, and everyone else could, but i think it is an idea, given that we have rarely have this new development project on the city for too long. commissioner antonini: thank you. in response to the question from commissioner moore, i think

there have been attempts at ballot measures, but i do not think any of them in the past got enough to qualify on the planning commission. i know in another jurisdiction, there was an attempt for and demonstrated action. there is time concerns and everything else. i think the city attorney will brief us on the various parameters around these types of things. on another note, i am really encouraged to see the spirit of cooperation between the branches of city government in the past few days, with particular reference to the ballot. and the measures that will be on the ballot, like tax reforms. while we still have to look at these particular measures in detail, it is encouraging to see various branches working in

harmony. i am hopeful that spirit of cooperation continues until next tuesday as the board of supervisors will consider my reappointment to the planning commission and would like to continue for another four years and that might variant and institutional memory is for the issues coming before us. almost everyone knows where to get a hold of me, but for those of you that did not have my contact information, you can call me day or night on my cell phone. i turn it off at night, so you never would be up in the middle of the night. i have received comments from many people over the years, but i want to make sure we cast the net as broadly as possible so everyone can get ahold of me if they have issues or concerns. think you very much. to go off this morning's

newspaper had an article about the item on the agenda today. the article made the same error that people make all the time with it, and testified before the commission on an environmental impact report. a draft environmental impact report has to have a hearing before the planning commission, and when people come to testify at that hearing, many people make the assumption that they are testifying about the project or plan, and that is not the case. comments should be made, as always explained by staff on the accuracy on the environmental impact report itself. the report is quite different than the plan or project. the time to comment on this

comes later. often times it is three-six months later. at that time the commission will take up the actual project and make a decision at that time. the article perpetuated that error by saying people who come and testify today on the plan, and in this case we are not having a hearing on the plan, we're having a hearing on the and our mental report. it is compounded the confusion that will take place later this afternoon. secondly, another article about darbart and the elevators that e due out of commission due to the things that take place. i think there is a simple solution, which people have been talking about for years, and that is cover the escalator's when it is not running. for some reason they have never consider putting shelter over the top of the escalators, which

i understand what help long-term maintenance. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: perhaps it is fair to say perhaps the planning department could make themselves available to get updates on distinguished public comment. >> thank you. if we could move forward to directors comments and questions. i will know for the record the historic preservation commission did not meet this week. >> think you. to announcements today. one is i wanted to announce i believe you got the media announcement of the new selection for the career planning director for the department.

that position is the one that oversees the entitlement process and zoning process, including preservation and public information counter and manages the largest group over 50 people. that position was offered and accepted by jeff joselyn, who worked for the city of berlin for many years. he is an architect. for 13 years he was the land use to provide for and managed urban design and preservation teams for the city, including management of the portland design commission and historic landmarks commission, and in the past five or six years has been a private consultant and developer. he brings a very strong range of experience to the department and the city. he will be starting his position officially in october, but will be coming to the city for several weeks in august and september and would like to see

both commission meetings in august, so you will have a chance to meet him that time as well. secondly, i would like to introduce several of the entrance. -- of the intern's. we have 16 internes and the department this summer. there are five of them here today. we have had over 450 applicants for this program from all over the world. we're very excited about being here this summer. let me just briefly talk about some of the projects they're working on. there is a project to assist the preservation data collection and identification of the historic districts. and revised the web site content to focus primarily on getting information to the public about existing local landmarks. there is a land use survey going on in various labor commercial districts to help us do some of the work.

the invest in neighborhoods program, which has been an issue -- and interest to the department for several years. work going on with ring connections, a program your heard about him the past, which is conducting research and compiling information on best practices. we're going on to enhance the transportation demand management programs. if there is information on urban food systems within the city. collecting information about that about what the city and other places in the region do. we're working on the driveway standards guidelines and analyzing the information from 2000 -- 2010 census. there is work assisting anne- marie of the legislative team and responding to inquiries and further work, which as been going on for quite some time,

research and creation of the archeological district. as part of the call-week program, each mentor has a planner to managers and supervisors their work. plenty of factors. -- planters. [applause] last week i understand commissioner wu invited the entrance to chinatown. thank you. the really enjoyed that. there was a discussion about planning in the non-profit sector. in the final week of the program there will present the work to staff during a noontime series. we are very happy to have them all. i like to read off the list of names. the five of you can raise your names as we go forward. susan parks, denise low, alexandra dcurby, joseph

kramer, ben caldwell, wendy chen, angela lock, and sarah mullins. thank you all. we're really happy to have you here. [applause] that concludes my presentation. think you. -- thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. anne-marie rogers here to give you four weekly update on the board of supervisors. this will be the last week of meetings prior to august 3, so there's a rush of activity. at the land use committee the bills -- the mills at the met was before them. this would amend the a ministry of code to add a limitation, deadline, and require the department to do our report.

it would reduce the fees for the mills at contract. this ordinance was reviewed by this commission and historic preservation commission. the recommendations were both the same, and they were minor technical changes, as well as one substantive change that would remove the bag limit of $3 million for residential property and 5 million for commercial property. supervisor wiener incorporated the changes of the commission, and this was recommended for approval to the board. also, a committee where the new- name sunset commercial district. this was heard on june 13 and recommended approval with modification. this would create the new neighborhood commercial districts and make changes to the definition of a trade shop. the proposed ordinance was amended to include most of the commission's recommendations, however, the supervisor decided to go forward with new names

instead of your recommendation for three. with that, the committee recommended approval, and the board heard that item the next day and recommended approval. also, land use committee the ordinance is part of what we once called the northeast legislation sponsored by board president chu. you voted on this in three separate phases. the majority of the commission recommendations were included in the revised ordinance is. the one exception was control for the limited commercial uses. this commission recommended keeping the controls the same, however, the supervisors chose to maintain the controls for the lccu's in the market octavia area. in the other districts, he decided to allow the larger lccu's. with that, all three ordnances were forwarded to the full board. supervisor aolague signed on

to the bicycle changes, and they were approved by the board on the first reading tuesday. also in committee was the student housing legislation. this proposed own right -- or in its would establish a definition for student housing. it was originally sponsored and put forth by this commission, and has been sponsor bides -- sponsored by supervisor wiener. this commission consider the ordinance in make, and then again in june. i your hearings you supported that exception and additional incentive for the production of new housing, while standing firm you would not support the conversion of existing housing stock. the supervisor in corporate a door many recommendations, and then -- and the land use recommended it to the full board. at the last meeting there was a hearing on the city response to the ada federal law.

this was recalled in response to lawsuits that have been brought against owners of small businesses. this was stuffed by the city attorney's office, department of public works, small business commission, department of building inspection, mayor's office, and planning. we focused on the recently- awarded certified local government grant. this will enable us to develop storefront guidelines that comply with our resource controls and american disabilities act controls. what they heard about a pending ordinate sponsored by president chiu that would require information about compliance to be embedded in every new commercial least, and this was informational only, so no action was taken. on tuesday the full board meeting, they did hear the charter of them and for the housing trust fund as you discussed. -- they did hear the charter

ordinance for the housing trust fund. supervisor campos supported it but regretted it was not supported by a tax. also, the transit center district plan. the land use committee heard it on july 16. this would be all of the ordinance is approved by this commission. this week, board sponsor kim thanked staff. supervisor mar express his feelings that shadows were not significant compared to the huge amounts of open space that would be provided. he agreed it was a tremendous project. the board president chiu appreciative the work that had been done to mitigate shadow impact. the board approved the ordinance unanimously on first reading. as you mentioned, a little bit earlier, there was the announcement about 8 washington.

board president chu announced the referendum commission against board its 104-12, the zoning map amended to increase the height 48 washington. this referendum has been forwarded to the department of election for verification and validation. the department of elections must notify the board, about the validity by august 30. at this point, the ordinance has been suspended from becoming effective. if the referendum detention qualifies the board of supervisors will consider the ordinance at a future meeting. at that meeting the board made repeal or adopt the ordinance. if the ordinance is repealed, the board shall submit that to the voters of the next election, november 6 of this year. lastly, on tuesday there were a couple of appeals of 601 delores.

the commission approved the cu on april 26. this would allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling in to a private elementary school operated by the children's day school. the board raised questions about compliance with the general plan and the project may not have been exempt from state equa rev. an agreement would result in reduction of the rooftop open space, as well as further limitations on hours of use. with this agreement mind, the board voted to uphold and overturned so the new conditions could be added, and then they approved them. leastly, there are three new pieces of legislation i wanted to share with you. the first introduced by supervisor kim, resolution for the supervisor -- citizens revisory committee to consider

pierce 30 and 32. these would be proposed to be the warriors' new home stadium. this resolution would ask that the port director appoint representatives from the reds as well as others was certain policy expertise, and that they would meet regularly and report back to the port commission and board of supervisors. there were two ordnances introduced. the first would establish embarcadero street. it would at the five the tight district. it would reduce that alcohol use district and make other amendments to parking and other controls. this would be scheduled for a hearing with you in the next 90 days. as well as supervisor wiener has introduced of business tax police and planning code ordinance that would amend all three of those codes. the ordinance would relieve

president for property owners and managers from renting five or fewer spaces into certain requirements. there would be relieved requirements under the tax code. they would be allowed to rent throughout the city and some tax amnesty involved. this item will be scheduled for your september 6 hearing. that concludes this week's report, unless there are questions. president fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: excellent report as always. i have a question, and this is a big i do not expect our report for today. on the item of reference die in general, i think that after a legislative action there is some sort of a time of period that an appeal has to occur or the referendum has to take place, i am just not sure. that is something i would be interested in hearing about, what kind of time friend those

things fall into, not with particular reference to washington street, but just in general for someone challenging an item how soon they have to bring this back to the legislator. >> we can look into that. president fong: commissioner sugaiya. >> now i forget what is going to ask you. in your comment about ada call for land use committee, you mentioned the city had received a certified local government grant. that is specifically going to be used to address ada issues -- >> to develop part guidelines, how to accommodate ada and historic resource requirements. >> a lot of issues did not

involve historic resources, so i assume this will be used as a way to also address the broader access issues. >> if i may, where we have been finding the constants is resources, because we're not wanted to make!w= major alterats to storefronts and historic buildings. we're more accommodating in non- historic buildings. the conflict has been that historic works department has been allowed this grant to restore sidewalks. that is where the conflict is coming in here that non- resources we are often able to accommodate inside the building or storefront space. >> we ran into that exact issue in our office. it kept getting more expensive and more expensive, because all the sudden it was not just a sidewalk book like a street.

commissioner moore: just for the record, i am not trying to correct you, but 8 washington -- >> that is the lot across -- 351 is 8 washington. commissioner moore: i got it wrong. the real reason i pushed the button is there has been a legal challenge to the signing of the privately-owned public open space as well as to ada. i was wondering i was wondering if that was brought up in your discussions. there was a consideration of height requirements, and people are posing a legal challenge. i read that in the paper. >> i was not